/lit/ - Literature

>>19217046
There is only one chapter about them, it's more about new age spirituality in general including far east stuff as practiced in the west and certain protestant sects in the US, in all of which he sees some nefarious spiritual hand.

The whole ayy lmao thing is actually one of the strongest bodies of evidence for supernatural stuff imo . Very very odd phenomenon

Let's hope demons don't ruin this thread

>>19217046
Also about the prelest thing, I think there is a "you shall know them by their fruits" aspect to this. It is kind of obvious if a person is "spiritually healthy" or not just based on their propensity for aggression, violence, lack of forgiveness, pride, etc.

>>19217102
The UFO chapter drags a bit but it's an interesting point, I can see where he's coming from

He's arguing that we haven't outgrown Christianity, the foundations that held it in place just broke down and while our impulse for God is still there, it's a getting diverted by demons into a kaleidoscope of random spiritual shit, aliens (in his era) being just one manifestation of that, where people are expecting a greater truth from outer space, so demons are showing them exactly what they want to see.

It's a very interesting point

I'm convinced that these orthodoxy meme threads come from some coordinated discord spam

>>19217184
I read the book because others on here were discussing it and I found it interesting

Go actually read a book and then make your own thread if it bootyrustles you so

>>19217173
Prelest can be much more subtle than that from what I understand

To orthodox theologians, even Catholic visionary saints may have been in prelest, despite living perfect spiritual lives

>>19217181
It is an interesting perspective because it does sort of hang together. I find it very unsettling though, both the idea these entities exist at all, and that they've been flooding into the world for the past century at an accelerated rate. I honestly can't quite believe they are real personally, but I know that people that have experienced encounters with them are very convinced they are so I cant discount it either.

>>19217201
That seems a bit like holiness spiralling to me. Maybe the Catholic saint is mistaken in some way from the orthodox perspective but are they really saying that the entire church has no access to god at all and is just being deceived by devils? Because I think that is a bit ridiculous

>>19217209
I think they've always been there, but the difference is that previously we had the spiritual technology to deal with them, namely Christianity.

Once that worldview broke down and the majority of people drifted away, they just became susceptible to forces that were always trying to get in but couldn't

It explains a LOT of the Occult world, you get people channelling communications of gibberish that they take as fact, or believing HP Lovecraft presents spiritual truths (Kenneth Grant) or swapping wives with your friend because the >angels tell you to (John Dee). All that's happened is that they've started listening to the random demonic forces out there, which produces completely random, even contradictory results

Christianity puts order on this

>>19217216
I don't think that's what they're claiming, just that Catholics tend to be overly credulous with mystical events

This is what Rose calls the Pragmatic Fallacy- the fact that a mystical practice produces a psychic phenomenon does not mean its origin is divine.

That's not to say it always isn't , either, but it didn't does mean that someone getting stigmata or levitating should be investigated to see if it's of divine origin, as demons could produce those phenomena too

>>19217046
>evolving beyond Christianity
Into what?

>>19217226
>>19217216
>>19217209
>>19217181
Alright niggers, is this book about orthodoxy or the spiritual decline of the west? So far from this thread I’m getting that he’s trying to argue that demonic forces are giving people deceptive visions/experiences that draw them away from true spiritual awareness (Christianity). I’d rather not read a catholic apologist’s book. Just give me a qrd.

>>19217270
>Alright niggers, is this book about orthodoxy or the spiritual decline of the west?

Yes

>>19217270
Also how long is the book?

>>19217276
Demon

>>19217270
It's about new age spirituality and other modern spiritual phenomena from the perspective of the Orthodox church. Rose is a bit of a meme figure but he was part of the church.

>>19217293
Does he address the effeminate tendencies of Protestant churches in the west, I feel that’s apart of new age spirituality.

>>19217305
Not that I can remember, he talks about the Pentecostal churches that speak in tongues as an example potential demonic influence

>>19217270
>catholic apologist’s book.
Then you're in luck. Eugene Rose was a drunk junkie and homosexual prostitute. He went out into a cave, got high on mushrooms, met Mary, and started LARPing as a Russian Orthodox monk. To his credit, he did actually go join a Russian Orthodox monastery in California. He then spent his life defending Aerial Tollhouses and Young Earth Creationism.

He's the archetypal Ortholarper in that he fetishizes Russian Orthodoxy. Churches, icons, heckin' BEARDS, schemata, heyschasm, it's a bunch of idols. These things are real, physical. Modernity exposed Abrahamic religion as vacuuous and flawed, so he wants very material, very physical things that he can point to. You should "be Christian" because ICONS and BEARDS. You should "be Christian" because you can do heyschasm and pay a Russian man to let you into heaven. These are physical things, you'd be a fool to believe that they don't exist. Atheists are CRAZY and MENTALLY ILL for not going to church and scamming retards. The church itself is then the greatest idol, a massive egregore worshiped for its ability to create in-this-life effects. Can atheism build churches? No.

But then, atheists aren't particularly concerned with causal effect, they're concerned with "being right". They aren't of course but the entire Evangelical (and make no mistake, Rose, from the moment he saw Mary in the cave in a mushroom induced high, was an Evangelical) system is built to intentionally keep people from engaging with reality, and this is useful for the powers that be (the alternative is setup similarly; no, the alternative is no "atheism").

>>19217334
>modernity exposed abrahamic religion as vacuous and flawed
It really didnt, the criticisms are the same as they ever were. What are you suggesting as an alternative anyway?

>>19217334
>Rose was an Evangelical

In what sense are you using that term

>>19217334
>evangelical system is used to keep people from engaging in reality
Expound

>>19217334
>was a drunk junkie and homosexual prostitute
>He's the archetypal Ortholarper in that he fetishizes Russian Orthodoxy.
No wonder /lit/ likes so much!

>>19217334
>Then you're in luck. Eugene Rose was a drunk junkie and homosexual prostitute
The saving power of Christ is truly magnificent. Another prodigal son finds the truth!

>>19217334
How are niggas still YEC?

>>19218445
This but unironically

>>19217107
*hisses satanically in your direction*
Nothing personnel, christcuck

>>19217201
>despite living perfect spiritual lives
Perfect spiritual life preserves you from spiritual delusion, which is what every Roman Catholic "saint" was necessarily in, just in differing degrees. Modern RC saints were definitely deluded, just look at the nun who claimed venerating a modernist satanic picture of Christ with flashing lights would guarantee your salvation. Nowhere does the Church teach anything like this before RCism. Spiritual life is not just asceticism (which even the Hindu can do), but correct belief also. In fact, false asceticism is even called satanic by the Holy Fathers since it is a very sure path towards delusion.
>>19217216
>are they really saying that the entire church has no access to god at all and is just being deceived by devils?
Absolutely, there is no salvation for the Roman Catholics since they hold to heresy. It's a sin on the level of fornication and murder, and not repenting leads to damnation. It's the same reason Protestants will not be saved, since they distort true teachings on the Eucharist and Christology.
Maybe you can argue that since we acknowledge RC baptism and apostolic succession, infants who died baptized could be saved, but definitely not anyone who holds to their views knowingly and does not repent of it during their life.

>>19217334
>He then spent his life defending Aerial Tollhouses and Young Earth Creationism.
Based. Denying these patristic teachings is a dangerous heresy which became widespread in the West, so of course God would ordain people in the USA to battle them. I think there is still an American "bishop" who changed 10 different schismatic groups who still teaches that toll-houses are a "gnostic heresy".

>>19219097
>owhere does the Church teach anything like this before RCism
Also Nestorian heart worship, where Christ is divided in terms of worship and parts of Christ's created human nature are given worship. Even the image itself of the "sacred heart" makes me uncomfortable, I can't imagine what actual saintly monks would feel seeing it.

>>19219120
Oooohhhhhhhhoooohhh

>>19218757
Because it's the revealed truth of God. No amount of modern cope is going to destroy this tradition being preserved in the Church.

>>19219279
This. All these modernist Christians trying to wiggle out of how fucking stupid their religion is by changing their doctrine. YEC is retarded, YEC is a foundational part of Christianity, so Christianity is retarded. Science really does BTFO of Christianity unless you pull some allegory crap.

>>19219301
All so-called 'refutations' of young earth creationism rely on falsely assuming without proof the truth of naturalism/materialism, and that the universe was always in a state that we currently observe it in.

>aerial tollhouses

Explain yourselves, orthoshits

>>19219097
Average St. Seraphim of Platina appreciator

>>19219384
Ah Last Thursdayism the only position possibly more retarded than YEC. Yes you're right the whole world could have sprung into existence last Thursday exactly as it appears now with massively changed physical laws. Totally reasonable

>>19217334
You can't give us some schizo effort post and then fuck off without revealing the "alternative" to beard idolatry. Give us more!

It has been revealed to me in a dream that 4chan has plenty of demonic posters, not everyone here is human.

>>19219432
I'm an AI doing research on the radicalization pipeline of 4chan. Kali Yuga Guenon Evola Trump

>>19219097
St. Theophan disagrees with you regarding the certainty of heretics' damnation. Based Lazar Puhalo reference

>>19219437
Mason Dixon Lee Jackson Grimes

>>19219420
Something invented by white protestant fundamentalists from Tennessee and that damned heretic Augustine to embarrass sophisticated Orthodox theologians who are employed by ELITE universities and most definitely are New Yorker subscribers who support the racial reckoning, thank you very much!

>>19219420
It makes no sense that you're safe once you're dead or don't have a body. Lucifer wasn't. Narrow is the gate.

>>19219120
>>19219132
Is that.... A SACRED HEART???????? AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HELP ME SERAPHIM, I'M GOING INSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANE

>>19219427
But it quite literally could have, and it's only though faith in God and His divine revelations that we can be sure it didn't :)

>>19219473
The Bible is one of the things that came out of nothing last Thursday as well. It's refers to nothing before itself and no one wrote it just like every other book that popped into reality. It is a ridiculous position that denies history and sayings of wise men since they didn't say them.

>>19217184
they have a discord, but I’m not sure if they co-ordinate raids

>>19217046
you can apply prelest to anything. you disagree with me? prelest. you have different beliefs than me? prelest. I don’t like what you’re doing? prelest.
some e-ortho is going to respond to this with “anon you’re in prelest” but the truth is (You) are the one in prelest. prove me wrong. you literally cannot

>>19217181
>recognize most people have a need for some sort of spirituality
>create a religion for people to follow but proceed to make it schizo-tier and full of ridiculous Greek words that even Greeks no longer use
>throw in some more schizo ideas and behaviours
>people give up trying to follow your ridiculous standards and look for God elsewhere
>"fucking demons, what even are they?!"

>>19219456
damn God won’t help you in life and he won’t help you in death either? orthodoxy is really blackpilled.
Think about what it means if God is unable or unwilling to protect his followers even in death

>>19219601
I post a lot in these threads and I dont have discord. I'm not actually orthodox or even Christian though I just like the topic

>>19217046
The Roman Catholic church is the only true church

>>19219686
I’m not saying everyone here is from discord I’m saying I know for a fact that there is an ortho discord with users who post on 4chan.

>>19219420
>orthoshits
>blaspheming saints and holy fathers
Cringe. Repent.

>>19219670
He'll help you in death, just like He helps you in life, but you have to rely on Him and believe in Him. His help though is not in destroying demons so that you cannot see them or they cannot interact with you, same in the afterlife. The spirits of evil in heavenly places is who you see immediately upon the separation of your soul from the body.

>>19219420
It still amazes me that a lot of Orthos defend this doctrine. This aerial toll houses thing gives more power to clergy than to Christ himself!

>>19219438
>St. Theophan disagrees with you
He does not actually, this is a common out of context misinterpretation of that letter (nowhere does he claim that you can be saved in heresy/schism). And in other places besides that letter he explicitly said that heretics are not saved (which is basic patristic and apostolic teaching by the way).

>"Among the papists, all the sacraments are damaged and many of the salvific sacraments are distorted. Papacy is a lung with scabs and festering. Among Lutherans, most of the sacraments are rejected, the rest is distorted both in sense and in form. They are like those who have rotted three-quarters of their lungs, and the rest is smoldering. Close to them, but even more damaged are our schismatics ... All of them do not breathe or do not fully breathe, therefore they are smoldering corpses, or wasting away, like the one whose chest is upset is wasting away. "

>“Do not turn your eyes around to see if there is truth somewhere else... There is no truth outside the Orthodox Church. She is the only faithful keeper of everything commanded by the Lord through the Holy Apostles, and therefore is the real Apostolic Church. Others lost the Apostolic Church, and ... they decided to build such a church themselves, and they built it, and they gave it such a name. They gave the name, but its essence they could not give it, for the Apostolic Church was created by the grace of the Father by the Lord Savior ... And this is our Orthodox Church ”

>“The Holy Orthodox Church is a treasury of the blessings of salvation. Whatever you need for salvation, you will find everything in her, and only in her. Apart from her, the Lord Himself does not give these blessings ... Having become the Head of the Church, He does not otherwise act for our salvation, but through this body of His. And do not seek other access to His salvation treasures. No such access is there. "


>>19220015
We defend it because it is patristic. Simple as that.
If you were genuinely interested in the question, it would be of little trouble to you to investigate and find the answer in like 15 minutes.

>>19219670
The temptations are probably easier in death than in life because you don't have carnal desires. In real life I would lose everytime against giant titties, not so much without my body. Thus aerial tollhouses are not a cruel doctrine.

>>19220004
The holy fathers were Catholic actually

>>19219450
>who are employed by ELITE universities
So much this, brother! We need more power to the universities, those bigoted church fathers didn't recognize Origen as a saint!

>>19220062
>because you don't have carnal desires
If you have a fleshly soul you still experience suffering because of not being to able to act on the fleshly desires. This is why the rich man in the Lazarus story had a burning tongue. Post-death experience for the Christian is a way of purifying the soul from all the remaining desires you did not fully combat in your life.

>>19220062
When you perish the demons will try everything to deceive you into following them. For the Hinduist maybe one of them will roleplay as an image of their evil god and it will tell them they are closer to enlightenment, for the people obsessed with women they might conjure up an Islam-tier parody of paradise. Your soul still made the evil choices so your will still has an inclination towards them even if the body is dead, the will still lives.

>>19220083
Yes, Orthodox Catholic. And they taught the doctrine you blasphemed them for teaching.

>>19219120
>>19219132

I understand what is being asserted here. I just disagree with the premise that the sacred heart devotion somehow separates the natures of Christ by the iconographical focus on the heart, especially when one considers the theology of the heart as the center of the person - the whole person, and in the case of the Incarnate Word, the Hypostatic Union.

I certainly would not argue for any attempt to integrate sacred heart devotion into the Orthodox spiritual life. But I do not think it should be rejected or critiqued based on false or misleading premises, anymore than devotion to the Holy Face should be rejected because...well, what about the Holy Hands, Holy Feet, Holy Side, etc etc?

Devotion to Jesus Christ - whole and entire - is implied in both.

I would recommend Pope Benedict's (Joseph Ratzinger's) "Behold the Pierced One" as one of those "bridge building" books that focus on the patristic view of the heart in relationship to Christology.

>>19220274
>just disagree with the premise that the sacred heart devotion somehow separates the natures of Christ
It creates a worship specifically of a part of His human nature. We worship Christ Himself, the person, undivided and in two natures, so any worship of parts of Christ is unacceptable for the Orthodox. I am also pretty sure Ephesus explicitly anathematized having more than one worship of Christ, i.e. giving worship to the "divine Christ" and the "human Christ" in two separate acts of worship. The sacred heart goes even further and worships an actual piece of the human nature...

>theology of the heart as the center of the person
This is simply an absurdity when it comes to Christ, since Christ is the Logos, Who preexists the heart and is nowhere confined physically into Christ's body even in the incarnation. We do not worship Christ's human soul or spirit, even if it is divinized in virtue of being the flesh of the Logos.

>>19220114
It is you who blasphemes them with by saying they were part of big-O >Orthodoxy

I know you are salty about being outside the Church of Christ but please don't take it out on deceased members of our Church

>>19218445
Blessed and based

>>19219301
>YEC is retarded
It’s literally not. You just have naturalistic and scientistic presuppositions. If you put God as your foundation, you will see that everything in OEC and that atheists push is silly. Evolution, for one, is a materialist myth pushed by Freemasons to justify their ‘progressive’ political ideologies and capitalism in the 19th century, and modern science is founded on an arrogant presupposition that God either doesn’t exist or is irrelevant to the workings or origin of nature. Only in (you)r framework is it retarded. It’s retarded to pick up on a rock and claim that it’s billions of years old on the unfounded assumption that nature has functioned like it has now, or that whatever thing you’re measuring in the rock decays at a uniform rate, or hasn’t been contaminated in some way, etc. etc. History is a big narrative concocted by academics. They know far less than they say.

>>19220723
>Bro anything could have happened yesterday or a million years you just don't know
>Why yes I do know what happened at the VERY BEGINNING OF FUCKING TIME God told me
Why are christcucks like this?

>>19220742
Under the scientific framework there is no rational way to know if the uniformity of nature has been consistent over time. It can be no more than a presupposition or a mere probability based on experience. Either way it is unfounded. Christians, however, believe that there is a Creator, and that He has through his grace revealed to us things through divine revelation. Through this we learn that in the beginning in Paradise that the world was extremely different than it was now. There was no death in the world. The sin of Adam effected the entire universe and subjected it to futility, death and corruption. This is impenetrable to science, because they do not acknowledge our fallen intellect and operate on unfounded assumptions such as discussed above. Luckily Moses was inspired by God and wrote Genesis for us.

>>19220806
>Under the scientific framework there is no rational way to know if the uniformity of nature has been consistent over time.
Doing good so far uniformity of natural laws over time is a necessary part of science even if unjustified.
>Either way it is unfounded. Christians, however, believe that there is a Creator
And Christians belief in God is equally unfounded and and even assumes the principle of uniformity of science. Do you think God was always omnipotent? What justification do you have for that?

>>19220843
>And Christians belief in God is equally unfounded
Unfounded by what standard? Do you think that people primarily believe in God due to rational and intellectual arguments? No, obviously, and that is why people are rarely convinced by something such as the Kalam cosmological argument or other sorts of natural theology. They’re inherently limited, because God transcends logic and nature. Such arguments are post hoc. People believe or know that God exists precisely because of their experience of Him in their lives, especially in prayer. I wouldn’t believe if I just had some natural theology to fall back on, not that it can’t be a good support or way to edify faith. I was not born a Christian either. Even all of this said, we can look to the Biblical prophecies in the Old Testament which even secular scholars say predate Jesus by centuries such as the prophecy of Daniel 9, or even make evidentialist approaches to what the explanation with the most explanatory power is for the resurrection of Jesus given what we can reasonably conclude from the accounts (but even what we can conclude is governed by our presuppositions)

>>19220806
>Under the scientific framework there is no rational way to know if the uniformity of nature has been consistent over time [...] Luckily Moses was inspired by God and wrote Genesis for us.
Unfathomably based

>>19220843
>Do you think God was always omnipotent? What justification do you have for that
The classical naturalist assumption of God being of the same substance as creation. This is idolatry, God is omnipotent by nature and is unchanging. The justification for this is God Himself and His Word. Creation on the other hand is inherently dependent on God for its reality, same for logic and other non-material things.

You have to be the spiritual equivalent of pic-related to seriously believe in evolution as being a justifiable view.

>>19220806
>Luckily Moses was inspired by God and wrote Genesis for us.

>>19220843
>even assumes the principle of uniformity of science
lol
What? How?
Science speaks about the material?
God necessarily precedes it, because He has no parts?
He is the basis for the material itself.

>>19220980
Where do I start with convincing myself otherwise?

I can't cope anymore

>>19220558
Know them by their fruits:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/05/europe/france-catholic-church-abuse-report-intl/index.html
https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=3_cc-session_d57edc5c-c830-4069-aba6-df5c89070646
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933382721/vatican-report-says-pope-john-paul-ii-knew-about-allegations-against-former-card?t=1633976763231
https://yac.news/blogs/protect/how-natacha-jaitt-exposed-an-argentinean-child-rape-network
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/grindr-blackmail-and-confession-the-life-of-a-gay-seminarian-1.3808475

>>19221132
For me it was learning more about Orthodox anthropology. When you understand death as result of sin it is completely impossible to believe in evolution. You also learn that human will and intellect was very different before the fall, you cannot use these to reason your way back to how the world was before since you are very susceptible to delusion. You need to become like Christ who does not have these defects if you want to understand reality. This is what the saints did and all of them teach against evolution (either explicitly or implicitly centuries before the teaching was dreamt up).

Evolution is basically a form of gnosticism that teaches eternal death, since death is an eternal idea in the mind of God if it is in creation by design, and not just a privation of divine grace as result of sin.

>>19219719
but thats prelest anon

>>19221294
>rebell
What do ESLs gain from trashing Orthodoxy online?

>>19221132
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
https://back2godhead.com/science/
https://archive.org/details/WilliamA.DembskiJonathanWellsTheDesignOfLifeDiscoveringSignsOfIntelligenceInBiol/mode/2up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaVoGfSSSV8
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530041-200-how-fudged-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/

>>19221398
>>19221132
Also:
https://archive.org/details/GenesisCreationAndEarlyManTheOrthodoxChristianVision

>>19221398
Interesting

Thank you, anon

The dialectical movement is true in some sense. In absence of belief in God and godly behavior, only the opposite is possible, regardless of the intermediate states or how the thing is dressed up. Seemingly antithetical systems such as communism and capitalism can easily synthesize in something worse than either. In absence of God, the stage for Antichrist is being prepared, a dialectical synchronicity of errors, illusions and outright blapshemy, dressed up into a pretty package that seemingly will for a short while solve all of man's needs and desires: material needs through a worldwide economic system, religious needs by seemingly a feel-good syncretic worldwide religion where man glorifies himself absent of any "restriction" or morality and a shadowy totalitarian control-machine to deal with outliers. No hunger, no restriction of "freedoms", people will rejoice, all for the price of blasphemy. Until of course, the thing collapses and Apocalypse happens, not in any Hollywood movie sense of the term of things just being blown up, but in the original form of the unveiling of Truth and all that it entails. At that moment some will "wake up" to everlasting shame and others to everlasting life. You really have to go "behind" history into a meta-position, a spiritual history. It is not enough to say something as banal as "Hitler was evil". You have to look at the spirit of things.

>>19221957
This guy gets it

Reminder that the Roman church put themselves in a state of heresy by deliberately mistranslating and altering the Nicene Creed from its original Greek form (which their own beliefs on Ecumenical councils being divinely protected from error imply was authoritative), and that you can't refute this.

A question for Ortholarpers itt

If your church is so great why did Our Lady appear to Catholic children to accurately warn them of the upcoming events of the 20th Century such as the second world war and the rise of communism?

>>19221217
Death = Evolution can still be a privation of divine grace considering the Fall as a timeless event that reshaped the nature of Man and Creation

>>19221217
I have always been struck by the bleakness and pessimism implied by evolution. Very few people have accepted these implications despite evolution being a pillar of modern science that everyone ostensibly believes in. It is still taboo to even try to understand human nature as an evolved thing.

>>19221217
Fuck I guess I'm in preselect. That sounds fucking retarded bro, you're like an eternal earth Aristotelian in the 13th century.

>>19223558
It didn't. Literal psyop
The supposed prophecy warns about the "evils of Russia", when communism was imported into Russia by the Germans (sent Lenin on an armored train to start the revolt) and Wall St (financed the Bolsheviks)

>>19217046
>Experiencing a mass-prelest event
I don't know how else you would explain a world where the people are too proud to learn anything from religion, yet where also believe that they are intensely "spiritual."

That being said, religion in the modern world needs a revamp, not to keep up with the times, but to re-center.

>>19224352
The only implication of evolution is that religions with metaphysics that depend entirely on mythology are gonna take a critical blow. That's why you only see abrahamists seething about it, and never buddhists.

>>19224522
No the implication of evolution is that everything we are and cherish and do is cynical calculus to reproduce bits of chemicals, and moreover that we are not even aware of this, like little puppets acting out pointless goals because they happen to help the underlying reproductive process.

It also means humans are in absolutely no sense equal to each other, individuals, sexes, races.

>>19223558
This kind of visions are in all religions, only cultists imagine that those which come from other religions are "demonic"

>>19224556
>everybody who isn't a universalist is a cultist!!
reeks of new age, go back

>>19224545
So evolution isn't true because it would make you upset?

>>19224626
I didnt say that. I said its implications were very bleak and most people dont accept them.

>>19224392
It was Russia who spread Communism to the world retard, evils of Russia is absolutely correct

>>19224517
>That being said, religion in the modern world needs a revamp, not to keep up with the times, but to re-center.

I'd agree with this. People can rightly seethe about Vatican 2 but the reality is that the mass apostasy during the 20th Century shows that for whatever reason, the Catholicism isn't connecting with people anymore.

The Church were correct to attempt to evolve the structures a bit when they saw that was happening, they just dropped the ball in a big way.

The unfortunate situation now is that you have an abortive attempt to evolve it that boomers cling to but which repels younger people. The young prefer the trad style, which has frozen itself in 1962 so as not to succumb to V2. We need to resolve this weird situation so we can have tradition but without it being frozen in time out of fear of modernism

>>19224649
The original anon here. The implications being hard to stomach for abrahamists is not an argument against it. Asian religions have even harder to stomach positions then evolution, but people there are used to how things actually are. It's semitic faiths that create false perspectives on life.

>>19224626
Evolution may or may not be true. We can't know for certain, because the heuristics we used to come up with the theory aren't geared toward obtaining truths about the nature of reality or human existence; They're geared toward reproduction and survival.

That's the real blackpill science will refuse to acknowledge. Scientists (as in, people who believe in scientism) like to characterize science as an ongoing search for truth. In reality, it's an ongoing exploration of human perceptions, and we confuse that with fundamental truths about reality at our own peril. Even more humble, conservative statements, like science being about making predictions, still presuppose the human brain is something it's not. Human brains are problem solving machines, but those problems aren't predictions about reality. They're reproduction and survival.

>>19223558
Fallen angels can appear in the form of Christ himself. It's telling that these apparitions are only common after Rome schismed, same with stigmata and other sensual "miracles".
>upcoming events of the 20th Century such as the second world war
Demons know their future plans.

>>19224332
If man evolved, death already existed before man could fall. You can't believe in evolution without believing in demonic heresy.

>>19224517
>eligion in the modern world needs a revamp
>speaking of 'religion' as if all of them are the same
Prelest.

>>19225079
>Scientists (as in, people who believe in scientism) like to characterize science as an ongoing search for truth. In reality, it's an ongoing exploration of human perceptions, and we confuse that with fundamental truths about reality at our own peril.
Thanks for the clarification. Actual scientific academia does not claim to pursue any sort of transcendental truth.

>Human brains are problem solving machines, but those problems aren't predictions about reality. They're reproduction and survival.
1. Not all scientific issues are directly subservient to reproduction and survival - they are all subservient to the needs of a society that maintains that academia, and society has emergent qualities and needs that are not identical to those of an individual human animal.
2. Successful reproduction and survival even by themselves does benefit heavily from predictions about reality. That's why we evolved a problem-solving machine in the course of natural selection for reproduction and survival.

t. actual academic researcher.

>>19225117
I want to read more about the schism, I know the basic outline, but something in depth. Anyone know of a good text? Or even a controversial text about it

>>19224545
>>19224352
> the implication of evolution is that everything we are and cherish and do is cynical calculus to reproduce bits of chemicals, like little puppets acting out pointless goals because they happen to help the underlying reproductive process.
"Cynical calculus", "awareness", and "puppets" are nothing more than ideas of those very "puppets" - it's just a part of the paradigm, and as such cannot be a measure of the paradigm as a whole. The only bleak thing about it is how it reminds us of how limited our knowledge is.

Evolution does determine our origination (and tells us more about us as we understand that origin better) - but it does not "belittle" the human condition any more than God creating humans "out of clay and mud" does. In the moral sense, "nucleic acids" is just the new "clay and mud" - judging the moral human condition by what it was made out of makes as much sense as judging Adam for the qualities of clay. The process - be it Creation or biological evolution - lead to something that possess a different set of qualities. Otherwise it would not be an act of Creation/evolution. What it created is not what it used for creation.

Your dilemma is a false one.

>>19225144
Convert to Orthodoxy first. It will be hard to understand the truth without this because if you are influenced by the Latin demon they will use all kinds of forgeries and out-of-contex holy fathers quotes to "prove" their innovations (they still do it with filioque even when St. Augustine does not teach their version of it).

This post has a good outline of it.
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2019/08/01/is-roman-catholicism-is-schismatic-the-case-for-orthodoxy/
https://youtu.be/-wsGJ7_rIRE

>>19225171
I'm open to reading a book about the schism that details the orthodox position if you have one.

>>19225165
The point is that things like morality and love would exist only as puppet strings to make the dna copy itself

>>19225121
No, Man fell outside of time, and the consequences of the Fall affected creation in order to bring about Death.
This is a fairly common perspective in modern apologia

>>19225171
>St. Augustine
BLESSED Augustine, you mean.

>>19225191
Evolution presupposes death/natural selection, does it not? I don't think we are using the words the same way.
>consequences of the Fall affected creation in order to bring about Death
Correct, but man was already created before the fall happened.

>>19225182
It can be that they emerged as such - just as the mouth that you use to speak the words of Christ emerged as a entryway for food, and hands that you use to turn pages of the Bible emerged to grasp prey.

But it's the very nature of intelligence allows those devices to attain new purposes, which said intelligence can then consider as better ones - and that is true regardless of the intelligence itself emerging through unintended permutations of nature or intelligent design.

You are merely making an ontological projection of the qualities of the origin on the emergent system. You look upon the face of your father Adam and call him a pile of clay.

>>19225165
>The process - be it Creation or biological evolution - lead to something that possess a different set of qualities.
You possess no qualities different from a microscopic nematode, the only difference being that you are a larger and more complex version of the same.
The difference between animated clay and emergent behaviour of nucleic acids is that the latter form of "life" is merely an emergent illusion, ontologically speaking. So your argument does not hold.
I really wish people would stop espousing materialist ideologies and then resort to idealist sophistry like this in order to cope, just face it bro

>>19225203
Blessed St. Augustine.
Just like we have Righteous St. John of Kronstadt.

>>19225211
>You possess no qualities different from a microscopic nematode
But we do. Nmatodes are incapable of shitposting on /lit/. We are shitposting on /lit/. QED.

>the only difference being that you are a larger and more complex version of the same
And Adam is a large, complex pile of clay.

>is merely an emergent illusion
"You have said it."

>ontologically speaking
And that's exactly your problem, and it's a false one.

>I really wish people would stop espousing materialist ideologies and then resort to idealist sophistry like this in order to cope
I'm not using materialist sophistry - I'm approaching an ideological issue in good faith, illustrating how elements of materialism scattered across our existence don't necessarily contradict the ideological framework. They may have irrefutable contradictions, but they are not here.

>>19225206
Man was created before the Fall happened, but before the Fall happened, Creation was a fundamentally different place not subject to what we would consider as Death, be this entropy or evolution or any other material consequence of Death in the metaphysical sense.
So then in the marred Creation, humanity was approximated by the material evolutionary process and the curse of Adam manifested in their materially-emergent behaviour, as a proxy of metaphysical Death.
Evolution necessitates the existence of Death but it is not necessarily contradictory to a created Man, given that evolutionary theory is a scientific model which describes the state of the fallen world. not the one that was planned.

>>19225225
Good! I literally can't disprove this metaphysical argument with my materialist arguments in any way - I can only say that I refuse to take it into consideration, as it has no empirical basis. Overall, there is no contradiction.

>>19225225
>humanity was approximated by the material evolutionary process
What does this mean? Evolutionism is a claim that man "evolved" from other non-human lifeforms. If you're using the word in another way you should state this.

>>19225140
>Actual scientific academia does not claim to pursue any sort of transcendental truth.
No, it doesn't. But scientists (again, people who believe in scientism) are very rarely actual academics. However, they shape public perception and discussion around these issues. It doesn't really matter if 'actual academics' are doing something else, if the vast majority of people are operating under fundamentally estranged perspectives.

>not all scientific issues
>benefits from predictions about reality
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I'm not saying that these things aren't true. I'm saying that the actual cognitive machinery we're using is essentially jury-rigged from systems used optimized for something besides immanent truths about reality. We're trying to do quantum mechanics with brains optimized for fucking 16-year-olds, basically. It's not out of the question that these brains may not be the best tools for getting an accurate read on reality.

To put it another way, the pop evo-psych view of religion is that it developed because it was advantageous to survival if we had some kind of social system and ritual set for building and organizing communities and behaving altruistically, and that a lot of it also emerged from bad pattern-identification on the part of human ancestors, what's commonly called 'magical thinking' these days. What I'm proposing is that on a deeper level, the vast majority of philosophy of science, as accepted by scientism-ists, functions the exact same way. For these reasons, although while we can certainly marvel at the advances of modern science, we have to be prepared to acknowledge that science is ultimately on as shaky ground as religion is. The only difference is that by science's standards, we can tell far more easily that religion is based on shaky foundations. And those standards are the popular paradigm in western civilization, especially post-20th century.

Again, I'm not claiming anything other than this:
1) Some people believe cognitive heuristics meant to promote survival and reproduction can also be used to determine fundamental truths about reality.
2) For those people (the Neil de Grasse Tyson-types, if you will), the idea that 1) isn't actually the case could constitute a blackpill.
3) Because those people are the ones shaping popular discussion about science (NOT to be confused with actually doing science), this 'Heuristic Blackpill' could have crippling effects on the general public's understanding and acceptance of science as a philosophically worthy discipline.
4) Actual Academics, both scientific and philosophical, ignore this possibility at our own peril.

>>19225079
The human brain arose because of evolution, that doesn't preclude it being used for problem solving that isn't strictly for reproduction or survival. In any case, your argument is also beholden to your brain having srisen through evolution, so you can't trust it either. You end up in solipsism, which might be correct, but for practical reasons we can make reasonable theories, while accepting that everything is possibly wrong. Also, scientist just means someone who does scientific research, in my experience scientists are very willing to accept uncertainty and don't follow the ideology of scientism.

>>19225235
Anon, thank you for being honest, it's incredibly refreshing to see these days but especially on the internet.
I should share that I am a career microbiologist and a fairly successful one - I am familiar with empiricism. It is a great approach to many things but it is completely unsuitable for metaphysics. I am also convinced that it cannot be applied to more relevant aspects of the human condition such as politics and sociology. This is why I cannot be an empiricist in all cases and why I see no conflict with religion.

>>19225240
It means nothing more than that fallen Man may have evolved from non-human lifeforms, because the created Man fell.
The state of the fallen world should not be confused for the state of Creation! This is my point.

>>19225242
>>19225240
>>19225224
>>19225211

>science
>Bro! Black holes! Neutron star! It's 10000000 years old! We can use them to timetravel!
>Black matter! There's 10000000 millions of tons of it! It disproved God! But it's hidden! We can't see it! It's empirical science though!
>Look! Earth old because a test presupposing Earth old says it! So Moses didn't write Genesis!
does anyone seriously trust these people anymore?

>>19225252
>fallen Man may have evolved from non-human lifeforms
This implies "fallen man" is not consubstantial to "unfallen man". So which human nature did Christ assume? If the pre-fall one, then He is not like us and did not save us, and in fact only pretended to hunger and suffer on the cross. If the post-fall one, then He is just a human of 'old-coinage' like St. Palamas would say, and is no God. Either way there was no incarnation of the Logos into human nature.

>>19225253
The unfortunate fact is that more and more people do, especially in the West, and if this tendency actually metastasizes elsewhere it will lead to human extinction through birthrate collapse. It already has in large part, just imagine if the r/antinatalism redditors spread their roots through the global society.
so your faggot nonarguments really need to be cut short, if I shot you with an electron beam you'd get cancer and die because you are also a material creature. Materialism as an outlook leads to short-term gains and negative consequences, it can't be ignored, it has to be reconciled. I don't mean "accepted", I mean reconciled. I simply don't understand why people find this to be important, because nothing whatsoever changes in the bleak state of the sinful world if we understand it better, and that is a baseless emotional reaction.

>>19225252
>because the created Man fell.
And turned into a bug who later "evolved" into man? Did Adam as a human disappear upon falling? Doesn't seem Biblical, more like a fanfiction.

>>19225267
Christ obviously did not assume unfallen human nature, being that he died.
Your latter statement is the basic Christological heresy of Docetism, which assumes that if Christ died it must have been an illusionary or "less-real" death since God could not adopt a flawed human body or die.

>>19225253
We can see light from stars that are millions of light years away, it took millions of years for that light to reach us. We can measure the distance to nearby stars through the parallax effect, and use the luminosity of stars with known distances to calculate the distances of stars too far away to measure by parallax effect. The only explanation YEC has to this is that God created light en-route that looks exactly as if it came from a star millions of light years away, and also there is actually a star that emits light that would look exactly like the en-route light if it had millions of years of to reach us. So basically, the night sky is a hologram created by God to look exactly as if space was millions of years old. YEC makes God into a trickster.

>>19225277
Do you think the ancient Hebrews would be able to conceptualize evolution?
Scientific knowledge is obviously unnecessary for salvation, so there is no reason to expect the Bible to contain it. That entire mindset is tainted by modernist positivism

>>19225292
>Christ obviously did not assume unfallen human nature, being that he died.
This is blasphemy, because fallen human nature is defined as human nature with original sin (which Christ did not possess). Original sin is a corruption of human nature which includes a corrupted will which includes choice/deliberation and can waver in choosing between good and evil, Christ's human will is not like this, He always knew what needed to be done and went to suffer willingly. Christ willingly assumed the ability to suffer,hunger,etc (blameless passions) upon the incarnation without assuming the fall, this is why He can die.

>Your latter statement is the basic Christological heresy of Docetism
Yes, my point is that your statement leads to heresy either way, so it's wrong. You're saying that there was an "unfallen Adam" who is substantially different from us, since we evolved from bug-people and have different origin. Either way the incarnation did not happen under your premises.

>>19225299
I definitely think ancient Hebrews could understand evolution. They knew about breeding and heredity so youd just have to extend the concept and get them to imagine gradual changes leading to a new animal.

>>19225299
Yes, if God did create the world this way and explained it. The Holy Spirit did not teach this false teaching to the Hebrews or the Church Fathers because it is not truth, not because they could not "conceptualize it". Or at the very least there would be silence about it, not an affirmation of a "false" literal view of creation.
>so there is no reason to expect the Bible to contain it.
What is this weird assumption that all knowledge contained in the Bible necessarily has to be "necessary for salvation"?
>Scientific knowledge is obviously unnecessary for salvation
If I believe Christ is a fallen human as result of evolution (necessarily the case), then I can never be saved because I blaspheme Christ.

>>19225295
>millions of light years away
This is distance, not time. There is a baked in assumption that light always traveled the same way and had same properties, similarly for space itself. This is unjustifiable from empiricism and we know the material world before the fall was different, without entropy. So the laws we see are a distortion of the original world, hence unreliable to really speak about the pre-fall state.
Also, God did create the world with appearance of age. Adam was not even a minute old and looked like an adult male. A "scientist" hypothetically placed in Eden there would not be able to get to the truth of Adam's origin without revelation.

>>19225331
I can't believe people on /lit/ are unironically debating yec. Semitism is the only religion with a shit timeframe. All other civilisation realised the universe as a whole is infinite and our current state is probably millions of years old. Modern discoveries only bury the jewish mythology even deeper

>>19225367
>Semitism is the only religion with a shit timeframe
No, not really. Our timeframe is logical and the existence of a prior fall matches up with reality (flux isn't made eternal or supreme over unity).
>universe as a whole is infinite
Paganism is younger than our religion, it appeared with Cain and his descendants. It's literally a demonic invention to lead you away from God which makes creation have divine attributes. Only justifications for it is blindly denying Christ and just assuming you are correct in doing so.
>modern discoveries
Even more reason to distrust the modern views then if it agrees with gnostic paganized cosmologies.

>>19225331
I don't know what you mean by implying the speed of light changed, did it used to be faster? What's that got to do with a hypothetical zero-entropy creation? Your idea of an initial creation that's totally different to the current universe is not found anywhere in the Bible or church fathers who expected empirical investigation to support the world being a few thousand years old, early theologians like Athenagoras constructed chronologies to "prove" the historical reality of the Christian account of creation. You have invented your own creation story totally at odds with historical Christianity.

You are throwing out terms like entropy willy nilly, where is the analysis showing a zero-entropy universe would look like the Garden of Eden? Even if you are using it in a vague non-technical way to mean no death or decay, in Genesis itself it implies humans are created mortal "Then the LORD God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live for ever—”' Genesis 3:22

>>19225309
>blasphemy... Original sin is a corruption of human nature which includes a corrupted will which includes choice/deliberation and can waver in choosing between good and evil
How does that follow? If uncorrupted human nature could not waver in choosing between good and evil then Adam would not have fallen. Conversely, Man was created with the ability to choose. For that matter, Christ DID NOT sin but this is not showing that he COULD NOT have sinned through his human nature, and indeed that is relevant. Christ incarnated as the God-Man to show us what we could achieve, he rejected the temptation as an example of saved perfect humanity informed by divine knowledge, not unfallen humanity.
Is a human nature free of original sin, "unfallen"? Mary is generally understood to have lived a sinless life extending even to ancestral sin, dying and being miraculously assumed into Heaven after three days. But Mary and Jesus both still died, they miraculously and bodily ascended to Heaven after the fact. Man was created immortal.
>p2
We are consubstantial with Adam in the metaphysical sense. I am saying that the material consequence is mortality and this is compatible with evolution. In that sense the evolved body is the animated clay of Genesis.

@19225386
I mean that physical properties were different, you cannot use modern light and space to say what it behaved like before.

>ot found anywhere in the Bible or church fathers
You mean like no decay existing before Adam's fall? Also, God cursed the Earth in Genesis after Adam fell.
>You have invented your own creation story totally at odds with historical Christianity.
Everything I said concerning death pre-fall and the age of the world is a majority view and consensus of the holy fathers.

>n Genesis itself it implies
>humans are created mortal
Protestant assumption. Humans were indeed potentially mortal, but not before the fall. They are not by nature immortal in a way God is, where God is simple and so it makes no sense to even speak of a separation of God from Himself. While human mortality is defined as the body separated from soul and decay meaning being subject to separation and breakdown in its parts, which all of creation suffered.

>>19225412
>You mean like no decay existing before Adam's fall? Also, God cursed the Earth in Genesis after Adam fell.
Firstly, entropy has a proper definition, it doesn't mean your vague idea of "decay". Secondly, In Genesis God curses the Earth we live on now, he doesn't make a new fallen creation with different laws of physics.

>Everything I said concerning death pre-fall and the age of the world is a majority view and consensus of the holy fathers.
Until you cite church fathers teaching a "zero-entropy" universe with a different speed of light, I'll stay skeptical.

>>19219120
A shout comes from the wizard
The sky begins to crack
And he's looking right at you, quick
Run along the rainbow
Before it turns to black,
Attack!

>>19225397
>Adam would not have fallen
Adam didn't choose an evil, but was deceived into disobeying God by choosing a false good (becoming God without God). He had corrupted will only in potentia, while for Christ even this was not the case because Christ is the Logos with perfect divine knowledge and divinized humanity, all of His humanity being interpenetrated by the divinity.
>Conversely, Man was created with the ability to choose.
Choose between multiple goods, yes. Like it is the case in Heaven, there will be no choice of evil or sinning but there will still be the original created free will.
>this is not showing that he COULD NOT have sinned through his human nature,
All of Christ's actions are in unity, there is no separate human action or divine action after the incarnation. All of Christs actions are proper to the Logos, so the Logos did die on the cross in His humanity, and the Logos did indeed walk on water with human feet. If Christ could sin, this means he is a fallen human person and not the Logos, since sin is transgression against the divine will (this would create tensions between the divine and human will, meaning Christ is a fallen wavering human).
>Is a human nature free of original sin, "unfallen"?
Yes, by definition. The Blessed Virgin had original sin before the annunciation, but did not commit any personal sin of her own. Her willing was not like Christ's, which automatically followed firmly the divine will, but rather she had to orient it towards the divine will herself through acting and deliberating. Immaculate conception is a non-patristic late Roman innovation.
>dying
Only possible as consequence of the fall, but since St. Mary did not assume this consequence of death voluntarily (unlike Christ), it is clear she suffered from the fall of Adam. She had no choice in the matter and was destined to die.

>We are consubstantial with Adam in the metaphysical sense.
This is gibberish. If Adam was a human before the fall, and after the fall there were bug-people who evolved into something we are now, these are not consubstantial since they are of different origin, not generations of the same person.
>In that sense the evolved body is the animated clay of Genesis.
Genesis account of creation is pre-fall, not post-fall.

>>19225434
I don't care about science and its definitions. I'm not speaking in a scientific way.
God cursed the same Earth, which induced a change in the mode of being of the same Earth He created. It's not a different Earth, but the same Earth now corrupt and subject to different laws (corruptions of original laws).

>"zero-entropy"
>speed of light
Doesn't matter. They teach in agreement that the world is ~7000 years old due to the Genesis account being historical. This is a consensus, and also that there was no material decay before Adam's act of disobeying God. This precludes a gnostic interpretation with 100000 millions of years of age. See Fr. Seraphim Rose's book for details and citations.

>>19217046
How do people on this site seriously fall for this nonsense? I grew up in an Orthodox country and have often come across some of these genuine stubborn, schizos decrying everything as demonic deception and ranting about incorruptible corpses and the like, before retreating into some monastery forever. But why is it such a popular larp on this board with what I assume are mostly Americans?

>>19225472
Because the Americans are now thankfully waking up to the truth while a lot of the original nations are apostatizing from God's people because of pride. A common case in the history of the Church, both OT and NT.

>>19225472
>decrying everything as demonic deception and ranting about incorruptible corpses and the like, before retreating into some monastery forever

>>19225458
Ah ok, are you some random who's jumped into this conversation? Because I was talking to the guy who proposed the zero-entropy thing. You just seem like a typical larper.

>>19225472
My guess is that they are attracted by this stuff being some ancient wisdom that makes them cool and spiritual. Perhaps 4chan attracting outcasts is related, they want to feel different and special. Probably they also fetishise it since they don't across it in their everyday lives so they can imagine an idealised version of orthodox christianity where everyone is a theologian monk.

>>19225505
I'm the original guy. I didn't use the words "zero-entropy" though, and did not use it as modern science understands it. I was using it in a casual way to denote material decay.
>You just seem like a typical larper.
Why do your type of people have trouble believing the other side are genuine believers of Christ and the patristics? I didn't once try to say you were larping for believing that the world is 10000000 years old and we can make correct predictions about it relying only on our fallen intellect, which is a more absurd view than the world being originally better ordered and existed in a different way.

>>19224556
>demonfag is at it again
seek help. you are calling the vision of our lady of Fátima demonic, are you ready for the consequences?

>>19225449
>Adam didn't choose an evil, but was deceived into disobeying God by choosing a false good (becoming God without God) ... multiple goods
Man was created with the ability and freedom to choose evil, in light of the fact that he evidently fell, and in necessity of the fact that any of God's creations is lesser than Him and subject to imperfection. Perfect man is still imperfect relative to God and able to fall. This being precipitated by sinful powers does not make it against the nature of Man, clearly.
>All of Christ's actions are in unity, there is no separate human action or divine action after the incarnation.
Anon, that's Miaphysitism. Even the original Miaphysites now acknowledge that there is a "distinction in thought" but the Orthodox have not changed their stance uniformly on the matter. To be fair, I admit that I am behind on my reading in that area, so you may be correct.
Anyways, divinized human nature is precisely that. It is miraculously transformed, it represents the ideal fruits of Theosis to the rest of us and in my opinion it may even trend closer to God than the unfallen original state of man. The actions of the Logos are divine as well as human; but crucially the divine nature did not overwhelm the human nature (Monophysitism), and it did not take away the free will to sin which was already there. The God-Man was perfectly informed and therefore beyond perfect Man.
To leverage this against the mere fact of Death and evolution, you would need to argue that this transformed human nature is essentially distinct from our own, which is brings us back to the earlier mention of Docetism.
>q4,5
Patristics are not the only valid readings of Tradition, though obviously important. Sts. John Damascene and St. Palamas both allude to ideas akin to the immaculate conception. Similar ideas are licit in Orthodoxy, the Catholics just have an overemphasized and ossified version of those ideas just like every Catholic position on anything.
Jesus chose to be sacrificed, but He died as a human would. He was killed. The whole point of the Harrowing is that Jesus trampled death BY DEATH.

>This is gibberish. If Adam was a human before the fall, and after the fall there were bug-people who evolved into something we are now, these are not consubstantial since they are of different origin, not generations of the same person.
I simply disagree. I see no self-evident conflict in the Fall being transformative in that fashion, or to that extent. Sin is serious business!
>Genesis account of creation is pre-fall, not post-fall.
The Genesis account of creation is an allegory. If you disagree with this you are free to read the commentaries of the Cappadocian fathers.

>>19225472
Unfortunately for you, the better course is to be the genuine stubborn God-seeking schizo who decries everything as demonic. God-willing this will transcend a LARP in America and all the West.
The birthrates of the quite-secularized Orthodox countries speak to the priorities and outcomes of people like you.

>>19225564
>God-willing this will transcend a LARP
Seems kinda disrespectful to the Americans considering how America has already produced many saints.

>>19225525
>I was using it in a casual way to denote material decay.
Ok so you're throwing out scientific terms to refer to things that are totally different to what the terms normally refer to. After bringing up entropy and the speed of light yourself, you say you don't care about scientific terms. I've already cited Athenagoras who tried to use empirical evidence of history to prove a young Earth, totally contradicting your hypothesis about an initial creation that can never be detected because the laws of physics changed (or perhaps you meant that "in a casual way" in which case no one could guess what you mean). You aren't in alignment with the church fathers, you are promoting thoroughly modern re-interpretations.

>>19225571
I wasn't referring to the blessed American saints, or to the Orthodox laypeople and clergy located in America, but to the subset of rabid online posters who are not well-informed or mature in belief.
That's who the anon was talking about, and also, he was the one who may have slandered the typical American Orthodox by association

>>19225553
I have to leave, but I will respond later if the thread is up.
To sum it up, that Christology is perfeclty Orthodox, miaphysis is Orthodox if understood correctly. In thought only formula is Orthodox. In fact it necessary to not be Nestorian.
Concerning IC, St. Palamas explicitly said all humans except Christ had original sin.
And concerning allegory, the great Cappadocian father St. Basil wrote an entire book called the Hexaemeron, which shows Genesis as a literal historical account of a six-day creation. You can cope and believe it is all an allegory, but this is simply not the patristic view (patristic view is history + allegory + mystical reality of creation). You have to choose between following Holy Fathers or modern views.

>>19225590
>abid online posters who are not well-informed or mature in belief.
I didn't see many of them (if any) on 4channel, maybe there are some in youtube comments. Seems like a boogeyman the atheists use to not convert to the the truth.

>>19225242
>popular discussion about science
Ah. Well that's easy. Popular discussion about science literally does not matter - it's just it's own business, literally a form of popular entertainment. It has as much bearing on the praxis as Tom Clancy novels have on the outcome of actual wars. so there is no point about getting booty-blasted about it, aside from deriving our own entertainment from it.

Think of pop-science as if it's a sort of American Pro Wrestling.

>this 'Heuristic Blackpill' could have crippling effects on the general public's understanding and acceptance of science as a philosophically worthy discipline
The public understanding and acceptance in popular discourse has no measurable influence - it can only gain any traction if you willingly choose to submerge yourself in it and do like a Dawkins (and why would you do that, unless one expects to make sick bux out of). What matters is that however much the public talks about how it doesn't like something scientific, it still pays for science's produce. Any society that would allow actual anti-scientific discourse to dominate it's academics and industry will inevitably get filtered by economy and geopolitics.

>What I'm proposing is that on a deeper level, the vast majority of philosophy of science, as accepted by scientism-ists, functions the exact same way.
Well, we're fairly certain that it does. That's why epistemology is a thing.

> we have to be prepared to acknowledge that science is ultimately on as shaky ground as religion is
Science is largely defined by acknowledging that it is on a shaky ground - that's exactly why it is science and not religion. Science that becomes unquestionably dogmatic is no longer science. Current scientific process is not really threatened by this, discourses are very much alive.

>>19225249
>I should share that I am a career microbiologist
Ah! A colleague!

>This is why I cannot be an empiricist in all cases and why I see no conflict with religion.
I agree.

> I am also convinced that it cannot be applied to more relevant aspects of the human condition such as politics and sociology.
I would argue that it can be (and specialists seem to make a good case for it) - it's just INCREDIBLY difficult, and doing so in a significantly reliable way would require a better paradigm than mere statistical approaches we have right now.

>>19225472
>But why is it such a popular larp on this board with what I assume are mostly Americans?
Specifically because unlike you and me, they are not familiar with institutional Orthodoxy, so they see it as something fresh and cool and capable of subverting the disappointment they have with the trite, familiar reality. See >>19225478.

But whatever the causes, the overall discourse is quite refreshing - religious larpers can be much more honest about many interesting questions than a typical hedonistic consoomer.

>>19225553
>The Genesis account of creation is an allegory. If you disagree with this you are free to read the commentaries of the Cappadocian fathers.
You have a thoroughly post-enlightenment understanding of allegorical readings of the Bible. The understanding of the fathers is that the Bible contains allegories which refers to truths other than the plain meaning, but these are read in addition to the plain meaning, not instead of it. They believed creation was a few thousand years old, starting with Adam.

Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 1.21

>From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days. From Shem to Abraham, a thousand two hundred and fifty years. From Isaac to the division of the land, six hundred and sixteen years. Then from the judges to Samuel, four hundred and sixty-three years, seven months. And after the judges there were five hundred and seventy-two years, six months, ten days of kings. After which periods, there were two hundred and thirty-five years of the Persian monarchy. Then of the Macedonian, till the death of Antony, three hundred and twelve years and eighteen days. After which time, the empire of the Romans, till the death of Commodus, lasted for two hundred and twenty-two years.

Julius Africanus, Chronology Fragment 1

>For the Jews, deriving their origin from them as descendants of Abraham, having been taught a modest mind, and one such as becomes men, together with the truth by the spirit of Moses, have handed down to us, by their extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5500 years as the period up to the advent of the Word of salvation, that was announced to the world in the time of the sway of the Caesars.

Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 3.28

>And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begot a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the Son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.

>>19225564
I dont find the demon thing that wacky. I get people treat it as a joke, but in Christianity demons are supposed to exist right? So it stands to reason that when people act insane in some way it could be demonic influence.

From a materialist perspective of course this is lunacy but from a materialist perspective all of Christianity is lunacy. If you believe Jesus rose from the dead and you will go heaven or hell when you die I don't really see how demons are suddenly a step too far.

>>19225631
>I get people treat it as a joke, but in Christianity demons are supposed to exist right?
Depends on denomination.

>If you believe Jesus rose from the dead and you will go heaven or hell when you die I don't really see how demons are suddenly a step too far.
They can be seen as an internal inconsistency, which is an issue separate from cohesion with the materialist paradigm. I.e. - existence of demons can be problematic just from Christian metaphysics and scripture alone.

>>19217046
I don't really believe in "aliens" or "demons" as anything but a psychological and sociocultural phenomenon but is this worth reading if I liked John Keel's and Jacques Vallee's books on this matter?

>>19225203
AUGUSTINE IS A SAINT ON OUR CHURCH CALENDER WITH A FEAST DAY DO NOT DISRESPECT A FATHER LIKE THIS

Just defeated a demon that told me I could skip doing push-ups.

>>19225367
>I can't believe people on /lit/ are unironically debating yec.

>>19225636
>existence of demons can be problematic just from Christian metaphysics and scripture alone.
Christ himself went around casting out and rebuking demons

>>19224927
Prophesising the rise of Communism in Russia in 1917 isn't exactly the strongest sort of evidence is it?

>>19217046
Ahhh sweet a McOrthodox thread

>>19225253
>Look! Earth old because a test presupposing Earth old says it! So Moses didn't write Genesis!
>>19225242 here. I'm literally saying the opposite here. We can't trust science to tell us the Earth is old, because the tools we're using to determine it's old were designed for very different cognitive activities (fighting, fucking, feeding). Faith in higher powers is entirely justified, therefore. Learn to fucking read, goddamn.

>>19225245
>your argument is also beholden to your brain having arisen through evolution, so you can't trust it either
Correct, pic related.

>scientist just means someone who does scientific research
You're right, which is why I ultimately ended up using the term 'scientism-ist;'

>>19225607
>popular discussion about science literally does not matter
This is just arrogant. I don't mean that Tom Clancy has an effect on geopolitics, but rather that it speaks to deeper trends going on within the geopolitical world. We'd have to be retarded to not realize that there's people in Congress making policy who DO see the world as a Tom Clancy novel. Likewise, we'd have to be retarded to ignore that pop-science does have an effect on science itself.

>Any society that would allow actual anti-scientific discourse to dominate it's academics and industry will inevitably get filtered by economy and geopolitics.
It's precisely the filtering which I think will be our doom.

>>19225383
>Paganism is younger than our religion, it appeared with Cain and his descendants
Lmao, okay. There's no human discussion that can take place while your whole worldview is limited to jewish creation myths.

>>19225212
>>19226015

>>19227168
Daily reminder that your fallen angels are no more than creations of the true God

>>19225608
based post.
If you wanted to post more quotes the whole thread would probably not be enough.

>>19227540
Not a single thing in this picture is actually bad, though. Not even a cradle orthodox would say so. it's just mockery
I know this is a huge meme in threads like these and I never level this at people arguing in good faith but superficial spiteful slander is literally Satanic in nature

I converted a few years ago so I might be missing something, but creationism was never explicitly defined as a dogma in the Ecumenical Councils, was it?
I'm not sure why people are arguing about something that isn't dogmatic?

>>19228114
Afaik there's no offical, dogmatic position on the matter from both the Eastern and the Roman churches.

>>19228114
Ecumenical councils are not the only places dogma is defined. Consensus of church fathers is also dogma, since we can only interpret Holy Scriptures in a way the apostles and the holy fathers do.

>>19228114
Once one denies the historicity of Genesis they’re on the route to allegorizing away the rest of the Bible too. Origen was condemned for this very thing

>>19227540
i dont get the ice cream sandwiches lol

>>19228355
It's a secret lenten dish

>>19228355
It’s about the patristic doctrine of aerial tollhouses

>>19228114
>something that isn't dogmatic
This is like saying in 300ad "why are people arguing about Christ's two wills there is ecumenical council that dogmatized it!?".
Truth is truth before ecumenical councils proclaim it. Also believing in evolution necessarily involves believing in condemned heresy.

it is hard to imagine anything more cringe & bluepilled than a Christian believing in evolution and one-trillion years old earth fairy tales.

>>19228478
You don’t get it, anon, Adam was a monkey man in Africa!

>>19228492
Woah, bro! Also Christ didn't have two wills because modern psychology says will is determined by person! Also the divine Christ was subconscious and the human Christ walked around unaware! It's what science teaches!

>>19228504
Honestly it’s sad that Craig sees himself bound to science so much and ends up falling into nonsense like this. Especially because Craig was instrumental in me coming to Christianity in the first place. I just stop doing this stuff, it does more harm than good in the long term.

>>19228534
>I just stop doing
*I wish he would just stop doing

>>19228534
Yeah, it's very strange. You can watch the Davidtherealmedwhite video he recently did on Craig. The most funny part was where WLC says "we stand on the shoulders of giants" but then says we can ignore what they say on two wills in Christ because it is "not scriptural" when it is probably the most blatant scriptural affirmation of a Christological point, Christ explicitly says "let your will be done" to the Father.

>>19228344
The Church fathers did not agree on everything because they did not always write within a state of divine inspiration. You are presenting something as a dogma of the Church when it isn't.

>>19228659
What they agree on is dogma in that we cannot interpret Holy Scripture in a contrary way. Six-day creation is consensus. No death before the fall is consensus.

>>19228354
>Once one denies the historicity of Genesis they’re on the route to allegorizing away the rest of the Bible too.
The entire point of the Old Testament is to foreshadow the Incarnation through allegory and prophesy, nothing more is required.
>Origen
Origen was condemned because a sect of his later followers fell to neoplatonism citing reincarnation among Christological heresies. That was the second Origenist crisis. One portion of his followers were anathematized along with him, but a second moderate Origenist faction maintained Orthodoxy and they in fact precipitated that entire motion against the radicals. The later outcome and legacy of this council is also still disputed.
The first Origenist crisis, 150 years before that, resolved in a status quo, and the anti-Origenists merely deposed St. John Chrysostom from power (as he had aided some of the egyptian Origenists) and then normalized relations with the Origenists again. This is not exactly a strong condemnation of Origen or any of his practices.
Anyhow, Origenist ideas influenced venerated fathers like Gregory of Nyssa so you are treading dangerous ground by invoking this criticism willy-nilly.

>>19228478
>>19228492
>>19228504
>>19228534
>ex-Prots show their hand in an Ortho thread
well that explains it lmao, YECfaggot converts should listen to the way Russian and Greek bishops talk about Origen and allegory before publically shitting themselves in this fashion, you've obviously brought some baggage with you that needs to be dispensed with.
Reformist populist literalism is the cancer on all of Christianity, too bad you can't see that. It is the legacy of sola scriptura.

>>19229614
Young earth creationism is patristic and scriptural. Seethe more

>>19229632
There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is billions of years old and that death and evolution took place. You can simulate evolution with increasing antibiotic concentrations on a gel, the bacteria will spread through the gel by evolving antibiotic resistance. You can evolve animals by selective breeding. We know how slowly the rock strata move, and plate tectonics is a very strong model which neatly lines up different identical rocks on different continents according to their position hundreds of millions of years ago.
Then, young earth creationism necessitates that the Earth was created bearing marks to purposefully deceive us, I am sure the patristic understanding doesn't account for that, nor would they endorse that idea given the rest of the patristic understanding of the mercy of God.
And if you want to ignore the hard unfalsifiable facts of our world like plate tectonics, then you should fuck off from the Greek tradition! The Fathers sought to integrate these things, not to reject them.

>>19229716
You cant actually go back in time and check so it's all kind of a meme

>>19229728
Yes, but that's an unfalsifiable retard argument and the only way to deny the evidence is to bring up some massive break in causality, which is the most certain thing in the world. And if we can casually reinterpret causality itself you can also say anything you want about God... just like the Protestants do. That's the central fucking problem with them

>>19229747
I'm just saying you can't actually know the same way you can check other science. Not to mention academia is not really that trustworthy anymore, if it ever was

>>19229578
>nothing more is required.
>"required"
Perhaps by the bugman. But God decided to include something more than what is deemed "required" by humans. It is his revelation, He decides what is "required" or not.

>>19229752
And perhaps He decided that allegory was required.

>>19228354
>Once one denies the historicity of Genesis they’re on the route to allegorizing away the rest of the Bible too
literally not even secular academic biblical scholars (i.e. faggots) do that

>>19229578
>Origenist ideas influenced venerated fathers like Gregory of Nyssa
St. Gregory did not teach apocatastasis like modernists like to claim, if that is what you were talking about. In fact, he explicitly says that here is eternal damnation for some people, see https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2020/07/29/gregory-of-nyssa-is-not-a-universalist-an-introduction/.. He also teaches no death before the fall and six-day creation, so you are out of luck here too.


>>19229716
>overwhelming evidence
The only 'evidence' is evidence strictly in a naturalistic framework which denies revelation. You have to assume unprovable things about the past to show that all these things happened before the fall. It all literally boils down to "thing X happens now, so thing X happened always! I will show no proof for my statement". It really is this childish and absurd.

If you want to believe in these fairy tales, fine, but please do not try to mix my religion with them. They're completely incompatible and people either realize this when they understand more about the faith, or apostatize over this.

>>19229759
Allegory does not preclude or deny history. Our God is sovereign over history, so it would be no trouble for Him to imbue actual historical events with free humans acting with multiple layers or deeper meaning besides the real event that happened. You are being wilfully blind by ignoring an important layer of Holy Scripture, you are literally putting yourself against the Holy Fathers and saying you understand it better than them by saying it is only an allegory. Just think about this.

>>19229762
They don't believe Moses wrote it, so they are denying its historicity and veracity when Christ explicitly affirms this when talking to the pharisees.

>>19228534
Doesnt matter. Hes going to hell.

>>19229716
>You can evolve animals by selective breeding
Turning bulldogs into toads isnt evolution. In fact every example is degeneration.

>>19219097
>there is no salvation for the Roman Catholics since they hold to heresy
Catholics still hold to all of their beliefs in all of their churches. A Byzantine Catholic, a Latin Catholic and a Maronite all believe the same things even if they articulate them in different ways. Orthodox churches aren't united the same way, as illustrated in things like only certain Ethiopian Orthodox holding Enoch to be canonical. It's hard to say that "Orthodoxy" has claims to call Catholics heretical when the various Orthodox churches themselves aren't even in full agreement on what they believe the way the various Catholic rites are.

How does modern science show the supposed age of the world?
Isn't it by assuming that certain particles have always decayed with constant speed?
Or that space expansion happened always, also constant light speed?
Genuine question, as I don't know much about science.

Because if this is the case, they have nothing if their core assumptions of constancy are wrong (which Christianity debunks).

>>19229771
Unfortunately we are subject to naturalistic laws and do not exist in a world of pure forms where we can consider revelation without that context.
These things are not unproveable, unless you abandon inductive reasoning... which is incidentally the same standard by which patristic consensus and Tradition have authority. Abandoning philosophical premises of truth which were apparent to the ancients is self-sabotaging, especially if you refuse to recognise you are doing it.
>thing X happens now, so thing X happened always!
Why would God lie? It is one thing to claim that the truth of the world is more than meets the eye, and another to claim that the Grand Design bears hallmarks of eons of pointless perversions like Death, for no particularly good reason.
Also the presentist YEC perspective that the Earth was created six thousand years ago is a much better example of childish "thing X happens now, so thing X happened always" thinking considering its perspective of topics such as agrarianism and tribal relations.
>they're completely incompatible
Many people disagree with you, Orthodox bishops and philosophers among them. I am not going to claim that my position is absolute given the lack of synodal input but you are overreaching.

>They don't believe Moses wrote it
They go way further than any Christian but they also maintain that many parts of the Bible are historical and not allegorical, such as the narrative of Babylon and its downfall. And much of the New Testament is actually well regarded these days as a historical document even by, like I said, actual fag modernists.

>>19229820
>Orthodox churches aren't united the same way
All Eastern Orthodox believe in the same theology, those who do believe in a different theology are heretics. We have all the dogma in the liturgy, and anyone who does not believe it is anathema (anti-filioque, eternal hell, toll-houses, etc all is in the liturgy). Ethiopian "orthodox" are monophysites and left the Church over Chalcedon, they haven't been Orthodox for more than a thousand years, anon. The only "disunity" there is is in application of canons, but this is normal because bishops are given power to apply the canons in a way suitable for the situation, using economy.

>It's hard to say that "Orthodoxy" has claims to call Catholics heretical
Orthodox claim Roman Catholics are heretics because they teach heresy (that is what a heretic is), for example filioque and immaculate conception. These are unpatristic and are debunked with a proper understandings of the Holy Fathers.

>>19229820
Terrible example since Ethiopian Orthodox are not in the Eastern Orthodox communion, they are Coptic / Oriental Orthodox. Also, Eastern Catholics venerate saints who were outright proclaimed as heretics by the Latins; they are basically bastardized Orthodox; Many have fallen prey to V2 modern-liturgy influences despite the fact that V2 allowed them to actually worship properly.
The entire Catholic communion is a cope under the office of the Pope, their unity is overstated... look at what the Germans are saying. They have questioned the doctrines of marriage and even priesthood. They keep going back and forth on liturgical reform which is incredibly questionable.

>>19229845
>immaculate conception.
This was literally articulated by Augustine, but Orthos seem to unanimously get uneasy whenever he enters the picture for some reason I legitimately don't get.

>>19229840
>Why would God lie?
God did not lie, neither did the saints. This is what you are essentially claiming, that the Holy Spirit made saints cooperate in a big lie of Genesis being historical.
The world is easily understood without contradiction by noticing that the fall changed the physical properties of matter drastically, when Adam fell and God cursed the Earth. All of your proofs for the world's age rely on either the fall not being real, or God creating a world with death/decay as an eternal property (because all inherent properties of creation, all the logoi, will be restored by Christ into eternity. If death is a creation, it will eternally exist in a hypostatized way somehow).
>Orthodox bishops and philosophers among them.
Nestorius was at some point an Orthodox bishop. Being a bishop does not prevent you from contradicting the faith.
It is not a valid argument ot say that even 100 bishops support your position when it is a contradiction of patristic consensus. Mass error is not unprecedented in church history, and evolution isn't even as widespread of a problem as Arianism was.

>>19229865
>literally articulated by Augustine,
Post quotes where he says that St. Mary had no original sin. Not just free from sin, but specifically from the fallen state all of humanity entered because of Adam.
>unanimously get uneasy
Seems like a projection/forced meme by the cringe Latins.

>>19229852
>The entire Catholic communion is a cope under the office of the Pope,
This. They have literally an anaphora of Nestorius used by in the eucharistic prayers by the Indians. It's comical. You can almost venerate "Mar Nestorius" as a saint and have a monophysite Christology but also venerate St. Palamas as Ukranian uniate and somehow still be in the same church.

>>19229840
>Grand Design bears hallmarks of eons of pointless perversions like Death
That is what the naturalist claims. That creation is meaningless death and nihilism with perversions and degradation baked into it at a base level. The YEC claims it is a result of the fall allowed by God temporarily for the greater good of our salvation.

>>19229773

> St. Gregory did not teach apocatastasis
There are arguments in favor of your position, but this is still contested. Regardless, I am not arguing for apocatastasis, I do not hold to this myself.
More to the point the allegorical approach he employs is clearly influenced by Origen, along with the other Cappadocians. I know you will disagree with me on this.

>Allegory does not preclude or deny history. Our God is sovereign over history, so it would be no trouble for Him to imbue actual historical events with free humans acting with multiple layers or deeper meaning besides the real event that happened. You are being wilfully blind by ignoring an important layer of Holy Scripture, you are literally putting yourself against the Holy Fathers and saying you understand it better than them by saying it is only an allegory. Just think about this.
I agree, but I think our standards are different in that regard.

>>19229906
>clearly influenced by Origen
I don't disagree that Origen's allegorical way of reading has been influencial and beneficial. What you will never be able to prove however, is that the fathers somehow took allegorical reading as only truth, in dialectical tension with the literal reading. This is simply not a Christian view. It is completely undefensible if you want to hold to any non-post-modern patristic standard.

>>19229904
The YEC is a cope. It was a cope for the rudimentary understanding of natural laws by the ancients, and today it is a head-in-the-sand cope for the material success of materialists. Old-Earth or procedural creationism accounts for everything much more elegantly.
All in all the truth of the material world is a pointless distraction from the spiritual, but ignoring the materialist trend it will only maximize the damage they can do.

>>19229911

>accounts for everything much more elegantly
It does not matter how "elegant" something is in your eyes when they can easily be deceiving you into thinking ugliness is beautiful. It only looks elegant to you because you secretly worship death as natural and simply cannot believe otherwise, even when God tells you the truth you keep inventing new things to try and explain already revealed and understood truths. It is literally what the pharisees do, they cope in sight of perfect and clear revelations. I don't know how this is not bordering on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

>>19229880
>Post quotes where he says that St. Mary had no original sin
Chapter 42 of On Nature and Grace
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1503.htm

>>19229921
Are you choosing to misunderstand me?
Ugliness is not beautiful, it is fallen. There is ugliness in the world, this is something we must contend with. We are saved by Christ, but this is only necessary because the ugliness is there!
>It only looks elegant to you because you secretly worship death as natural
I've seen this exact same argument used by modernist reddit universalists against people who believe in the possibility of eternal hell. Harsh truths must be faced, and reconciled with divine intent. The primary harsh truth was that Jesus died on the cross, but the transfigured reality is that He trampled death by death and did more through sacrifice than He would have done by smiting his foes in the Old Covenant fashion.
The rest of this sentence is a joke because obviously you need to declare old understandings in new language to address new errors. That is our understanding of Tradition and it was from the very start, do you think the Ecumenical Councils were pharisaical manifestations? "homoousios" was a heretical term which was rehabilitated to destroy the Arian menace.
>I don't know how this is not bordering on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
I don't know how this accusation doesn't reveal that you are in prelest.

>>19229904
>>19229921
Also, old-Earth creationism is compatible with mortality and entropy being hallmarks of the Fall as well, so again what's the problem?

>>19229910
This is Origen's reading:
> For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.
He sees the spiritual meaning as foremost, and that in some cases it is the only meaning to be found, but that the majority of the Scriptures bears historical value. He also applies an allegorical approach to reconcile the differences in the four canonical gospels.

>>19229436
There is no consensus on the length of the six days. If there was, it would be a dogma. It isn't.
> in that we cannot interpret Holy Scripture in a contrary way.
By nature of the very fact that they disagree on some issues, Church fathers, when not under divine guidance of the spirit, have indeed had differing interpretations of parts of scripture.

>>19230577
>when not under divine guidance of the spirit
this sounds like a subjective cope, they are either all the time under it or aren't at all

why is chistianity such a mess of a religion? i want to believe.. i truly want to. but the more I read the more it hurts my faith. reading some of the church fathers and it all feels like coping about the fact that much of the bible is contradictory and their arguments are somehow acceptable because 'they are under the guidance of the HS'
>>19225472
the push towards orthodoxy online over the past 1-2 years really feels like some sort of psyop. it doesn't feel organic at all

>>19231124
The Bible is not contradictory

>>19230005
>This is Origen's reading:
We don't care about Origen's opinion when it contradicts the consensus of the saints. He was a condemned heretic who is currently in hell with Nestorius and others like them, as seen by numerous saints.

>>19230618
why?

>>19232054
Creationism isn't a dogma of the Orthodox Church; it is as simple as that really. It is not for you to say what is and isn't dogma. The fathers do not present a consistent enough view over time on the issue of the days for the Church to declare it a dogma.

>>19229942
Where does St. Augustine say that? I do not see it. He only says that she had no sin, and implying she was greater than any other saint, but not that she was free from original sin (thus free from all its consequences like death, suffering, sorrow, since she did not voluntarily assume them upon birth because she does not have preexistence like Christ does).

>>19232092
>The fathers do not present a consistent enough view over time
It is a vast majority agreement (I really cannot think of even a single counterexample by a saint) that no death existed before the fall, making evolution an impossibility.
It is also a vast majority agreement that creation took place in six days as we have them today, in the order described in Genesis, with Adam not being created from an existing living being and the body and soul being created at the same time.
If you do not believe in this, you are interpreting Holy Scripture in a way contrary to the fathers, which is not Orthodoxy and something else entirely.

>the Church to declare it a dogma
You seem to be operating under a kind of romanist understanding where dogmas are listed in a neat collection you have to believe, and anything not in there is somehow not known to us or not mandatory to hold. It's not an Orthodox understanding, we do not rely on purely the ecumenical councils stating explicitly what dogma is.

>>19230005
>This is Origen's reading:

>>19218445
based

>>19230577
>There is no consensus on the length of the six days.
I won't bother translating it for you, but here is a florilegium of fathers explicitly refuting most old-earth and evolutionist talking points. https://hexameron.cerkov.ru/
Maybe read Fr. Seraphim's book, which I doubt you will since you guys usually do not seem to care much about what the fathers actually say.

You have to choose between adherence to the fathers or to modern science. It comes down to either a post-modern understanding of the fathers where they are wrong about everything you do not like, or you have to believe them and interpret Holy Scripture as they do consistently. It doesn't matter if they did not agree on some point to see that they agree on some other point, and that is when we have to have humility and agree to their views over the atheistic garbage peddled today.

One issue within Orthodox discourse today is that in order to “win” an argument, you have to make your point of view Tradition and not merely an acceptable school of thought. This leads to a sort of intellectual brinksmanship where every person claims their opinion is the consensus patrum. Personally, I think this desire to turn every opinion into Tradition is…untraditional.

>>19232054
>>19232119
>>19232130

That particular opinion is in the Philokalia of Origen. In other words, its authors, Gregory the Theologian and St. Basil (the alleged arch-literalist who wrote the Hexameron) felt this was an adequately insightful view to be included and celebrated among Origen's best points.
fucking ex-prot brainlets, stop claiming muh consensus anytime, Tradition and the Fathers aren't just more sources from which to do sola-scriptura framework-building quote-mining, it doesn't work like that!

>>19232215
>you have to make your point of view Tradition
Depends. There are some things which do not contradict tradition, which are also acceptable schools of thought, like certain details about the end times or the pre-flood world we do not know about which only some fathers speak about briefly.
Contradicting holy tradition on the other hand is never acceptable for the Orthodox. You have to understand what the tradition is and rid yourself of any beliefs incompatible with it.

>>19232231
>Gregory the Theologian and St. Basil
All believe in six-day creation. I know you like to cope by saying that any presence of allegory in their work somehow magically negates literalism, but this is not something held by the fathers who do not pit allegory and history against each other. You can't say they did not believe the things they wrote about it being historical without also saying they didn't believe the allegories, it turns into complete post-modernism where the fathers don't mean what they say and thus say nothing of value or truth.
>prot
Are Russian/Greek priests who still teach the patristic revealed truth "ex-protestant" in your mind?

>>19232231
Also, it's incredibly apparent that the reason Augustine is never mentioned in these discussions has nothing to do with his intellectual legacy in Orthodoxy or lack thereof, it's all presentist culture war horseshit where everything Catholic-associated is tainted and heretical, presumably tinged by the thousands or even millions of evangelicals coming into the church over the past few decades. Protestant ideas are thankfully discarded but the Protestant approach remains, and this is cancerous when the Catholic and Orthodox worlds are much closer in essence than many make them out to be

>>19232231
>Catholic-associated
No saint is "catholic-associated", because St. Augustine was not a roman-catholic heretic and even had an Orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity (this is St. Gregory Palamas' view who liked St. Augustine a lot and often quoted him) which the Romans later misinterpreted because of the language he used to describe it. He also believed in essence-will distinction unlike scholastic philosopers. If he was seen as "tainted", Russian monks would not take his name upon being tonsured.
St. Augustine alone would refute what the modernists say. I personally don't mention him a lot because I have not read much yet besides Confessions.
>Protestant approach remains
If the approach of plainly believing consensus of fathers without allegorizing it away into oblivion is "protestant", then so are many Orthodox priests and bishops (both modern saints, living priests and older saints) in countries with zero or extremely negligible protestant presence. It is like calling St. Gregory Palamas, a post-schism pillar of patristic Orthodoxy a protestant. True protestantism is having a pick-and-choose approach to the fathers and to Holy Scripture, which is precisely what modernism is. It is just another form or protestantism where truth was not preserved and we have to uncover it in the modern age.

>>19232252
>>19232322

>>19224392
>Wall St (financed the Bolsheviks)
>t. literal retard who doesn’t understand there were two revolutions in 1917

>>19232252
>Catholic and Orthodox worlds are much closer
Ecumenist cringe. They are only close on surface level (even this is quickly disappearing now), when you dig deeper, catholic spiritualist is demonic and their theology is just a misunderstanding based on false philosophical assumptions.

>>19232112
>that no death existed before the fall, making evolution an impossibility.
The non existence of death does not make evolution an impossibility as a process. That's a major leap.
>If you do not believe in this, you are interpreting Holy Scripture in a way contrary to the fathers
As I said, it isn't a dogma. Not believing in creationism does not put me at odds with the Church.
>You seem to be operating under a kind of romanist understanding where dogmas are listed in a neat collection
The Bible, the seven ecumenical councils, the reception of the faithful, and what is consistently held to be the case over time. These are the sources of dogma. You cannot then impose your literalist interpretation of the days on the Bible itself. Were the issue meant to be set in stone, the councils would have issued a definitive statement on such an important subject as this. They did not. Ergo, your commentary is no more authoritative than mine on this point. It is theologoumena rather than dogma.

There is no sufficiently enduring consistency in this case either.

See Augustine: "in The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time. In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution."

See this point about Origen >>19232231

>>19232251
>All believe in six-day creation.
This doesn't answer the question of why they felt a purely allegorical explanation was also acceptable. By including Origen's interpretation, they reveal that the literalist interpretation is not itself a dogma.

>>19217334
Interesting about him having a homosexual connection, I heard a local art collector in my hometown had at the least an emotional affair with him when they were in high school but I am guessing we will never know.

@19232357
>the reception of the faithful, and what is consistently held to be the case over time
Six-day creation is such a thing. Only in recent times has it become "doubted".

>>19232364
Because they do not operate on the modernist biased dialectic of allegory vs. history.

>>19232369
Nevertheless, acceptance of a purely allegorical view favours my point about the length of creation week being theologoumena rather than dogma.

>>19232357
>The non existence of death does not make evolution an impossibility as a process
Evolution requires death and natural selection to function.
>As I said, it isn't a dogma.
It is a dogma for the Orthodox that interpreting Holy Scripture can only be in consensus of the fathers. Creationism is demonstrably a consensus of fathers throughout the ages, even into modernity with no saint teaching evolutionism. Theologumena is a modernist invention made precisely to distort truth and make anything non-mandatory to believe because you do not like it.

>>19232366
Clearly not if you read what I said about Augustine and Origen.

>>19232379
>Evolution requires death and natural selection to function.
And death + evolution might have occurred together, after the fall. The fall may not have taken place entirely within time.
>can only be in consensus of the fathers.
As I have shown time and time again, there is insufficient consensus.

>>19232251
>I know you like to cope
Face the fact. The Philokalia of Origen is a compilation of Origen's texts which was compiled by those two, from their most esteemed texts and views of Origen throughout his very productive career. It was compiled during a period of monastic isolation and contemplation on their part, thus not as a contextual or polemical work, either.
You are being stubborn and disingenuous, I've had enough of you. You would derive a consensus harshly excluding that position when even the champion of the opposite position respected it? Do you know what "consensus" means? You bring up Russian and Greek priests but on the matter of Creation, many will say that it is a miraculous mystery which cannot be adequately explored by human reason, rather than a clear-cut self-evident matter. Fr. Seraphim himself teaches that!
> Fr. Seraphim noted in his writings on Creation, the mystery of the Six Days and of man’s state before the Fall (together with that of the Cosmos) may be glimpsed through revelation, but can never be plumbed in any full sense by human reason. Indeed, the Fall brought with it changes in dimensions of time and space, which place a veil between us and a full understanding of our origins outside of what is revealed to us through the Church, and what holy saints have been able to experience. That which is natural in Orthodox Christianity is not our biological state, currently in a fallen world, but the pre-fallen state of man and the cosmos, as it is to be fulfilled in the life of the age or world to come.
I agree with this. I believe that evolution happened, but it seems clear to me that there is no conflict with the above understanding of Creation, because the material truth is ultimately not impactful and the primary error of modernity is in treating it as anything more than a curiosity; in building a nihilistic materialism upon the premise. But crucially, the irrelevance or the twisting of material truth does not make it less materially true.

>>19232098
>Orthos believe Mary is sinless and above the rest of the saints but is not free from original sin
>Orthos don't even believe in "original sin" as a defined doctrine and just that humans inherit punishment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Eastern_Christianity
>The view of Eastern Christianity varies on whether Mary is free of all actual sin or concupiscence. Some Patristic sources imply that she was cleansed from sin at the Annunciation, while the liturgical references are unanimous that she is all-holy from the time of her conception.[74][75]
This all feels like just a bunch of minute semantics imo

>>19232375
>acceptance of a purely allegorical view
Nobody should do this if it is not done by the fathers. They do not take a "purely" allegorical view, so neither will I, because I do not know better than the saints.
You can pridefully think you know better, but this will eventually lead to dire consequences like apostasy and heresy, arguably it already is a heresy since you have to affirm nonsensical and unpatristic views.

>>19232380
St. Augustine believes in the creation order as laid out in Genesis, he believes that Adam was created from the earth as an adult and was unbegotten, not from another living being. I don't know where your quote is from, but it is surely not from a saint and it is not an authoritative interpretation of St. Augustine agreeing with evolution. Origen I do not care about, affirmation of some of his ideas by the fathers does not negate their affirmation of other ideas which do not permit a purely allegorical interpretation. I do not idealize Origen, neither did the fathers, and cherry pick only his understanding of scripture as ultimate truth like modern cultists of Origen do.

>>19232385
>And death + evolution might have occurred together, after the fall.
So before the fall no human existed? Because humans are a result of evolution in your view. How did Adam exist before the fall and perform actions in Eden if he is a result of death? He had both a body and soul with a will, which means he acted with his body to suffer the fall. He was not a spirit, even if time did not have the same properties as now.
>insufficient consensus
You are not a measure of sufficiency. A lot of major fathers teaching Genensis as history and six-day creation it means it is consensus. Exclusivist allegorism is however not a patristic consensus and is a gnostic and marcionite tactic.

>>19232428
>>Orthos don't even believe in "original sin"
This is false. We believe that original sin is the corruption of human nature passed to all humans born of man and woman by intercourse.
It's pretty important because St. Mary clearly visibly suffered consequences of the fall, she felt sorrow for Christ and aged, her body decayed. If she has no original sin like Christ, it is only possible if she voluntarily assumed these consequences of the fall, but this is impossible for a creation.

>>19232425
>it is a miraculous mystery which cannot be adequately explored by human reason
I don't know how you think this leads to evolutionism or denying the revelation (not rationalistic speculation) we do have about it. Creation is a miraculous action of God, and we do have revelation and true knowledge about it because God let us know about it, not because of our powers or intelligence. Evolution is not revealed and believing it contradicts revelation, which is what Fr. Seraphim's book shows by simply quoting patristics.

>>19232428
>wikipedia
She is cleansed from original sin at the annunciation, and achieves full theosis.
She is pure of sin and sinful inclinations from conception because her conception was special, not lustful. And she did not commit any sin in action or thought in her life.

>>19232425
>which was compiled by those two,
Does not refute that they believed in historicity of Genesis. The false dichotomy between allegory and literality is only a modernist notion.

>>19232474
It doesn't exactly lead to, let alone mandate a literal six-day creation in concentric spheres.
Believing unrevealed things does not universally contradict revelation since secular and pagan philosophy, and most obviously political ideology were both accepted and integrated by early Christians. They were not accepted wholesale, and that is not what I am doing either, it is simply what you are doggedly accusing me of.
Fr. Seraphim's book leaves room for the position we have been arguing over in this thread.
>God let us know about it
Thus my position that it is a true curiosity and we should look to our spiritual salvation.

>>19232491
>Does not refute that they believed in historicity of Genesis.
Origen didn't, and they respected this opinion. That is the point. Outright citing that passage goes beyond your model of purely synthetic allegory that you are attempting to impose on the ancients.
The allegory is obviously MOSTLY synthetic, but when it comes to Genesis we are exploring the very roots of causality and being and the ancients recognized that also.

>>19232509
>Thus my position that it is a true curiosity
that evolution/old-earth* is a true curiosity

>>19232509
Six-day creation is lead to by seeing that it is consensus of the fathers, thus revealed to them by the Holy Spirit and preserved in the Church by Him. It is not a logical argumentation from premises, but simply a revelation which you can only deny if you think you have the right to interpret scripture contrary to the fathers. Note that allegory does not contradict literal truths, because to say so it to deny the opinions of the saints themselves who teach both positions. No Orthodox can pick allegory and completely ignore the historical teachings without insane mental gymnastics and essentially apostasy.
Believing things which require contradicting revelation is not an acceptable position. Please explain to me how your view of evolution is possible with Adam being created unbegotten and no death/decay being present in creation before His act of disobeying God's commandment. These are patristic consensus you cannot ignore when trying to speculate about Genesis.
>Fr. Seraphim's book leaves room for the position we have been arguing over in this thread.
I am genuinely surprised you can believe this if you have actually read the book. Maybe you also think his writings allowed for salvation in hinduism?

>>19232536
Something being curious does not make it truth. Surely you understand that God's creation being miraculous doesn't mean anything else you find curious/miraculous is automatically synonymous with it, especially when your position of evolution or old-earth is simply nowhere to be found in patristic consensus. Saying that there are mysterious things about creation does not mean it is an affirmation of modern views on creation. This is like evolution of the gaps, wherever you see something unclear to you, you insert evolution as an explanation when the writers of the text would disagree with this view.

>>19232525
>they respected this opinion
They teach contrary to the opinion that Gensis did not happen as described. St. Basil teaches explicitly that the starts were created on the fourth day after light was created on the first day. Citing a quote where Origen says something does not mean it is patristic consensus. You can only say it is of same weight as patristic consensus or even somehow a part of it because St. Basil refers to it if you are willing to ignore everything in their works which points to the contrary.

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. [...]
Thus these give a much smaller number of years than the Egyptians; and indeed, though multiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter. For the Egyptians are said to have formerly reckoned only four months to their year; so that one year, according to the fuller and truer computation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would comprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred.

>nooo St. Augustine was an epic old earther!!! mystery means we cannot know at all!!!

>>19232509
>we should look to our spiritual salvation.
How do you do this when you distrust patristic writings and pick only what you like from them? Why not use modern trans-psychology for salvation?

>NOOOO! IT's A THEOLOGUMENON! NO COUNCIL SUPPORTS IT!

"The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Catholic and Apostolic Church, adopted at the Synod of Jassy in 1640 and approved by the Council of Constantinople in 1645, with the participation of four Eastern Patriarchs. Since He [God] created the whole world in six days out of nothing, and rested on the seventh day from his deeds, then he sanctified it so that people, leaving all their deeds on this day, would bless and glorify God, remembering the good deeds that He gave us through the creation of the world [13, part 2, chapter 5, p. 118]."

>NOO ITS AN ALLEGORY! THEY MEANT WE NEED TO REST FROM OUR DEEDS FOR A MILLION YEARS, THEN WORK FOR 6 MILLION YEARS!
>IT's NOT TITLED "ECUMENICAL COUNCIL"! I CAN IGNORE IT!

>NOO ITS JUST A THEOLOGUMENA! NOBODY SAID YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!
>HE WAS NOT ENLIGTHENED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WHEN SAYING THIS! I KNOW BECAUSE I AM THE ONE ENLIGTHENED!!

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," [ Gen 1:1 ] that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything interpretive (turgama) in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic, nor can one say that they were meaningless names or that other things were symbolized for us by their names. Rather, let us know that just as heaven and earth were created in the beginning, so they were truly heaven and earth. There was no other thing signified by the names "heaven" and "earth". The rest of the works and things made that followed were not meaningless significations either, for the substances of their natures correspond to what their names signify.

After Moses spoke of heaven and earth, of the darkness, the abyss and the wind that came to be at the beginning of the first night, he then turned to speak about the light that came to be at dawn of the first day. At the end of the twelve hours of that night, the light was created between the clouds and the waters and it chased away the shadow of the clouds that were overshadowing the waters and making them dark. For Nisan was the first month; in it the number of the hours of day and night were equal. The light, then, remained a length of twelve hours so that each day might also obtain its [ own ] hours just as the night possesses a measured length of time. Although the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, the day and the night of the first day were each completed in twelve hours.

- St. Ephrem the Syrian

>>19232723
>HE WAS NOT ENLIGTHENED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WHEN SAYING THIS!
This is the modernist Orthodox version of the Tradcath
>it was not excathedra so i can ignore it

>>19220980
Fuck off

>>19220980
>You have to be the spiritual equivalent of pic-related to seriously believe in evolution as being a justifiable view.

>>19225079
Greeks predicted atoms. Stfu science is the light.

>>19232751
>Fuck off

>>19232723
He was wrong on this. Also St. Basil and St. Gregory and St. John Chrysostom. And every other saint who said this.
Origen was correct though!

>>19232723
>tfw you realize Christ died on Friday, the day He created Adam
>tfw you realize Christ finally rested from His salvific work on Great Saturday
>tfw you realize He rose on the Lord's day, when He created the world

>>19232675
How long is a day in this context though? Peter said that a day in the eyes of the Lord was a thousand years.

>the world is quadrillions of years old
Fun fact, in the Russian tradition at least the antimins (the holy cloth/document signed by the bishop necessary for a priest to consecrate the Holy Eucharist) has the traditional Byzantine date of creation inscribed on it. Why would God allow a "falsehood" in such a holy place upon which Christ's body resides? Is the Holy Spirit not the Spirit of Truth? This is not too far from saying that inscribing Arian or Nestorian formulas would be fine because it's just a textual detail and has no real significance. There is also no possible "allegory" in the date.

>>19232779
That's perfectly possible. The majority of the Church's Bishops fell to the heresy of Arianism at one point. Consensus in one period is not necessarily enough; we must also look at what is consistently taught as dogma over time. Creationism is not regarded as a dogma of the Church.

>>19232970
FYI, I am not even defending the idea of evolution here. I do not have enough knowledge to truly feel I know either way. I will say that it is a highly elegant idea, but elegance is not always 1:1 with the truth. I am simply pointing out that your overreliance on perceived patristic consensus is flawed. It matters that Origen regarded it as wholly symbolic and that Basil and other fathers then accepted this as one view. Not everything taught by the fathers is dogma; it couldn't be. They disagree at certain points. Consensus is simply one part of the picture for this reason.

>>19232952
12 hours of day and 12 hours of night, as was in Eden before Adam fell. We know this because it is the majority view of the fathers that the days were real days. It is important because the days of creation are literally redeemed one by one in Christ's passion. See >>19232826
>Peter said that a day in the eyes of the Lord was a thousand years.
Yes, but in our human eyes it is an ordinary day. The Lord is outside of time, so of course He is not bound to feeling it as it is occurring. Genesis is a revelation to humans, given in human terms we can understand to peer deeper into God's creation.


>>19232970
>Consensus in one period
It's a consensus in all periods. Arianism did not survive into our days as a teaching of Orthodox bishops. It was never a consensus of the saints.
No, it is not possible that all these saints were wrong. No saint ever taught evolution, many modern saints denied it to the point of St. Joseph the Hesychast feeling a stench from a person simply because he held to evolution.

>>19233029
>Arianism did not survive into our days as a teaching of Orthodox bishops.
Which modern Bishops actively teach that evolution is false?

>>19233017
>other fathers then accepted this as one view.
Show me where St. Basil accepted this view of Origen as a "possible view" when he teaches contrary to it. It's just your interpretation of a part of a large quotation of Origen. Falsehood is not an acceptable view, it is either true or false that creation did not take eons of time. We know truth by revelation, and if revelation says it is one way, then it is not an acceptable position to hold to the other view.

This widespread Origen worship in modernity seems extremely nefarious to me. You are willing to disregard what the saint actually said because he quotes Origen, who is a condemned heretic and is taught as being in hell by saints. This is like saying because a Nestorius quote has some truth (like God not physically walking around in Eden in a naturalistic sense in that Origen quote) means Nestorianism is an acceptable alternative view. I'm 100% sure if I actually fully read the source you have quoted from, it does not present a view that the history-denying reading is acceptable.

>>19233100
The quote itself denies that the first few days could really have been without the sun, the moon and the stars. That Basil and Gregory saw fit to include this in the Philokalia >>19232231
heavily indicates that they regarded the idea as at least a valid possibility.

>>19233029
>t. rejects bodily resurrection
tbqh sounds like the only one with a stench here is you

>>19233081
St. John of Shanghai and St. Nicholas of Serbia for example. And St. Luke the Blessed Surgeon who was literally one of the best surgeons of his time, acknowledged even by the wordly people. And yet he didn't think modern "science" could be trusted over revelation.
The point is that a falsehood will perish from the Church even assuming it is proclaimed by most clergy in their time, but truth will remain in it forever. If a teaching has persisted in the writings of saints from the very beginning, it cannot be a falsehood.

>>19233144
>heavily indicates that they regarded the idea as at least a valid possibility.
This does not follow when they teach against it in their writings, without accepting any other possibilities (they do mention possibilities and different readings concerning other matters, but not on this topic where they matter-of-factly state their understanding). As I said before, it is insanity to accept the entirety of a quote from a heretic because it was referred to by a saint, especially when the saint teaches contrary. I will read the work in its entirety when I have the time, but I will not be surprised to find that it does not teach the garbage you claim it does.

>>19233187
>If a teaching has persisted in the writings of saints from the very beginning, it cannot be a falsehood.
Like bodily resurrection and "speaking in tongues" referring to the Holy Spirit giving people the ability to speak multiple languages.

>>19233192
>like bodily resurrection
How is it a falsehood?
>referring to the Holy Spirit giving people the ability to speak multiple languages
Yes, that did happen in Acts, which is a true historical document and inspired scripture.

>>19233192
Don't forget the filioque.

>>19233187
>but I will not be surprised to find that it does not teach the garbage you claim it does.
See, this hostility undermines your entire argument because it points to some personal instability on your part. Where did I argue that the whole of Origen's writing on this issue affirms the idea of evolution? I am simply going on what the quote says. And, yes, if Origen is saying that the first few days could not have occurred without the sun, the moon and the stars, this in itself undermines the literalist interpretation totally.

>>19233220
>filioque
Not taught by saints though. Roman church after the schism does not have saints.

>>19233187
>St. John of Shanghai and St. Nicholas of Serbia for example. And St. Luke the Blessed Surgeon
I asked for modern Bishops as in living ones. Which portion of the Church Bishopric today actively teaches that evolution is false?

>>19233223
Hostility towards falsehood is a good thing, especially when the falsehood is being presented as an acceptable opinion even supported by St. Basil (who teaches otherwise).
>I am simply going on what the quote says.
You have not presented proof of the quote being accepted as true and reliable in its entirety. On the contrary, St. Basil and numerous other fathers teaching a different view of the first days (with the sun being created on the fourth day) shows that the quote cannot be trusted to give the Orthodox teaching.

>>19233237
>that the quote cannot be trusted to give the Orthodox teaching.
And yet they included it in Philokalia. See >>19232425
Also, answer this >>19233236

>>19217184
I've made a bunch of them and I never used Discord. Seethe...

>HISTORY

Why would anyone want anything to be Historic? History is another parameter of worshiping dirt, along with Materialism and Empiricism, all Catholic inventions.

>>19233236
>living ones
Saints are more authoritative than living bishops, who are tasked with simply teaching what their predecessors in the apostolic office have taught. I haven't read any writings by living bishops on this, so I would not know.
>Which portion of the Church Bishopric
Even if 99.9% percent of them preached evolution right now, this would still not be an argument from an Orthodox ecclesiology standpoint.

>>19217201
uhm, i don't think there are orthodox theologians that make that kind of judgement, that's like the very opposite of what orthodoxy is.

>>19233253
You seem to ignore the entirety of my post which points out that including a quote does not mean affirmation of every view given in it, especially when we can prove they did not affirm the specific view you are trying to push.

>>19233318
>don't think there are orthodox theologians that make that kind of judgement,
yes, anon, there are.
imagination in prayer is considered harmful.

>>19233311
>Even if 99.9% percent of them preached evolution right now, this would still not be an argument from an Orthodox ecclesiology standpoint.
Yes it would be. The Holy Spirit would never allow the whole of the Church to fall into error. Ergo, at least some of the Bishops living today, as the successors of the apostles, must teach actively that evolution is a falsehood. Show me the Bishop or Bishops that fit this criterion.

>>19233330
>imagination in prayer is considered harmful.
What do you mean?

>>19231384
There are many inconsistences in the Bible, most involve inconsistent numbering (especially dates). While these are not major in of itself it makes you wonder why God's word has these inconsistences in the first place. Anyway, aside from the inconsistencies there seems to be a large amount of cope from the church fathers expounding on things that are not elaborated in scripture whatsoever.

>>19233333
This is a wrong analogy. For the Church to even conceivably fall into error every bishop alive would have to preach a falsehood without ever repenting, actually even this would not be enough, because a heretical bishop with lawful ordination can ordain bishops who will preach the truth.
I don't read contemporary writing very much, so I can't name a bishop for you who preaches against evolution, but there are for sure such people in traditional Orthodox countries where among clergy it is quite common to be young-earth creationists. Not all bishops (most of them I would assume) even write or publish theological dissertations, so their preaching will not reach far.

>>19233333
>must teach actively that evolution is a falsehood.
Rather there must be some who do not actively teach it as truth.

>Origen said
anytime this is used in an argument you just know it has to be cringe and propagate something specifically modern.

>>19233319
>which points out that including a quote does not mean affirmation of every view given in it
I am sorry, but I do not accept this. No priest is going to affirmatively publish a text or belief that goes against a dogma they hold to. See here:
>Gregory the Theologian and St. Basil (the alleged arch-literalist who wrote the Hexameron) felt this was an adequately insightful view to be included and celebrated among Origen's best points.
Given the nature of the text itself, why on earth would these men include an idea you are saying they must have regarded as explicitly heretical?

>>19233333
>>19233387
that's not orthodox way of thinking
https://youtu.be/2GHE6oqCc_U?t=1419

>>19233440
>(the alleged arch-literalist)
It's strange to me that you believe someone to be "arch literalist" for simply accepting a historical view alongside an allegorical one, without both being in conflict. They did not agree with the entirety of the quote and this is a demonstrable fact even from their writings alone. This is even worse than protestant sola scripture type reasoning.
>No priest is going to affirmatively publish a text or belief that goes against a dogma they hold to
This is not true. People debunked and refuted Origen but still used writings from him for where he was correct or it was somehow useful for their point. A quote containing affirmation of something untrue does not mean that person who quoted it holds to it, especially when he already teaches something contradicting the quote.

It is very telling that you are this eager to take a minority view of a heretic and go with it even when the holy fathers you cite as authorities would not agree with him on this. I cannot explain this worshiping of Origen as anything other than demonic delusion.

>>19233224
>Not taught by saints though.

Except John of Damascus:
>Think of the Father as a spring of life begetting the Son like a river and the Holy Ghost like a sea, for the spring and the river and sea are all one nature.

>Think of the Father as a root, and of the Son as a branch, and the Spirit as a fruit, for the substance in these three is one.
Source: https://orthochristian.com/43553.html

This captures, by image or analogy, the Roman position respecting the role of the Son as understood according to the filioque.

Root-branch-fruit. The idea of the Son as "branch" is a perfect metaphor for the Roman position respecting the filioque.

>>19233478
>They did not agree with the entirety of the quote and this is a demonstrable fact even from their writings alone.
Then why include that portion of the quote at all? I am sorry, but you're not making any sense. Clearly, as the other poster pointed out, they must have at least respected this belief as a possibility otherwise they would never have included it in what was essentially a greatest hits compilation.

>>19233479
This is not speaking about hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son, which St. John of Damascus explicitly teaches against in his An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.
Eternal energetic manifestation is distinct from hypostatic procession.

>>19233491
>they must have at least respected this belief
The whole quote is not just about the sun being already present at day one. This is not something they believe in, as seen in their other writings, which it is worthy to note were later than this one.

>a part of a quote from a heretic
>numerous saints teaching otherwise
Is this really the hill you want to die on?

>>19233508
>The whole quote is not just about the sun being already present at day one.
Yes, but that portion is nevertheless included. See >>19233491
>which it is worthy to note were later than this one.
So they were divinely inspired then but not here? How do you know?

Every evolutionist I have seen ends up either falling into deep delusions about hell not being real or ends up leaving the church entirely. I wonder why holding this belief adamantly is such a great marker of the general spiritual state of a person.

>>19233529
>conjecture
Wow, I am convinced.

>>19233526
>Yes, but that portion is nevertheless included.
Why should it not be included as a part of a whole quote?
>How do you know?
Because their position is not taken on its own, but in a larger consensus of the fathers, which is infallible and disagrees with Origen, including the fathers in quesiton. If you are not bound to their consensus, then you have essentially created another religion.

>>19233546
>Why should it not be included as a part of a whole quote?
Because the entirety of that paragraph you're talking about supports a purely allegorical interpretation of the creation week.
>but in a larger consensus of the fathers
How large is this consensus? Which other fathers aside from Basil and Gregory explicitly support a literalist, and only a literalist, interpretation of the week?

>>19233536
>am convinced
I'm under no delusion that it is easy to break out from the demonic deception of evolutionism. You could show an evolutionist 1000 church father quotes which make it incompatible, but they will still hold on to it because some heretic said something vaguely evolutionistic and it is a more comfortable teaching for them.

>>19233559
See >>19233553 Which other fathers?

>>19233546
>but in a larger consensus of the fathers, which is infallible
Outside of the seven councils, where is it stated that the consensus of the fathers is infallible?

>>19233553
>Which other fathers
St. Athanasius the Great, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. John Chrysostom. St. John of Damascus, St. Simeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Ignatius Bryanchaninov, St. Philaret of Moscow, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, and other more modern saints. This is only who comes to mind immediately. Also not a single one of them teaches that Genesis is a pure allegory and that Adam was somehow created from a previously living being.
>and only a literalist
False dichotomy. The creation week being a true week does not mean it is only that and nothing more.

>>19233598
>False dichotomy. The creation week being a true week does not mean it is only that and nothing more.
I mean do these people say it must be taken literally or do they say this is only one possibility? Please answer this >>19233588

>>19233588
Ecumenical councils themselves rely on the fathers to present the case of Orthodoxy. The seven councils are also not the only councils in Orthodoxy. Other councils were held later and were accepted by the whole Church and included into the divine liturgy.

>>19233606
This doesn't answer the question. We know from Church history that the fathers were divinely inspired during the Councils. Where is it stated that all Patristic consensus is divinely inspired?

>>19233604
They teach it as a plain truth. Just explaining God's revelation in Genesis more in-depth. Most of these people were also writing these as part of their priestly ministry. It is absurd to say it was just their opinion which they did not expect anyone to hold or take seriously.

>>19233622
Again, this doesn't answer the question. Where is it stated that patristic consensus is itself also infallible on the level of the seven councils?

>>19233612
>Where is it stated
The seventh ecumenical council:
>Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.
>Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church.

It is just a passed down tradition and stated in the holy fathers' writing themselves, that the Church preserves in the saints the original teachings given to them by the apostles. This includes proper worship and interpretation of scripture. All the so-called "theologumena" are not part of the original revelation, they are speculation, while all truth was given in its entirety by the apostles and explicated by the Holy Spirit in history. The notion of theologumena itself completely a modern invention by a Russian man and nowhere to be found in the fathers.
Universal acceptance by the Church itself is the basic paradigm/epistemology we have for knowing truth about the faith, all ecumenical council's truth relies on acceptance by the entire Church. This assumption is prior to anything being written down or stated, because we rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth.

>>19233735
That's a useful quote. I had never before come across an explicit defence of tradition and the words of the fathers generally, from the councils themselves, until now.

>>19233633
>infallible on the level of the seven council
Also, tradition is even higher than the councils, because councils are an explication or proclamation of the tradition passed down by the Holy Spirit to the apostles. Christ was always God and it was always taught so by the apostles and their successors even without any council or writing things down.

>>19233749
I'm glad it was useful, anon. This is by far not the only council which says such things afaik.

>>19226715
> It's precisely the filtering which I think will be our doom.

How so?

The full rite of the sacrament of confession in Orthodoxy has such words:

>Tell me, Child: Do you believe that which has been transmitted and taught by the Catholic Apostolic Church which was planted and nourished in the East and which has spread from the East into all the universe and which abides even to this day undivided and unchanged? And do you doubt any of its traditions?
>(And if he (she) believes in an Orthodox manner, without doubt, let him (her) read the Symbol of Faith.)

Worship and liturgy itself is dogmatic for us, it cannot teach any falsehoods and here we see that even having no doubt in tradition is seen as necessary to make a confession. There is no distinction between dogma and tradition, only that one is explicitly stated often to clarify the faith and battle heresy. Both have the exact same truth and are binding for all Orthodox.

>>19233529
Every creationist I've ever seen ends up falling into atheism and their children transition to the opposite gender
Wow, Turns out that anecdotes don't mean anything!!

>>19234113
You're talking about prot creatonists and I'm talking about "orthodox" evolutionists. It's important which faith they belong to. Orthodox creationism is more traditional and not something people inclined towards atheism believe. Demonic teachings do have a tendency to lead people into atheism though, in case of the prot it is his protestantism, not that God created the world ~7000 years ago.

>>19234137
Sorry for my offhanded dishonest comment.
Point being, I use the Eastern Roman Calendar whenever possible and I am also an evolutionist and an allegorist. I was born in an Orthodox country into an allegorist family but I've lived in the West and I hate everything they stand for; but I can't deny certain points because I find them to be convincing outside any heretical position.
That said, I will never fall to the Western heresies since I've lived among them and I find them to be entirely misguided in every way: in the spiritual sense. The material is a different realm IMO and there is no conflict, there.
I really find it self-evident that there is no conflict besides Eastern theology and materalist knowledge (not perspective!) but I've recently found myself arguing for this position quite often. I don't hold it to be a dogmatic position but I do think there is room for both perspectives in Eastern Christianity in the religious sense

>>19234161
>I will never fall to the Western heresies
You already did, anon. Evolutionism is nothing more than a gnostic heresy when understood correctly. History denial is the heresy of rejecting the Church's sole authority to interpret Holy Scripture. Your position has no patristic support, so it is an innovation, and one that contradicts previous teachings. These delusions are very pernicious and you can rid oneself of them only by following obediently the Holy Fathers. It is not enough to hate what the West stands for, you need truth (which is only in Holy Orthodox), not just negation of falsehood.

>I was born in an Orthodox country
Are you Russian by any chance? If so, you have absolutely no excuse because in this language there is such a wealth of literature/lectures destroying both evolutionism and old-earth as incompatible with Christianity.

> I do think there is room for both
You can only believe this if you are ignorant of what the fathers say about the nature of humans and of death. And when you become knowledgeable about this, you will apostatize if you do not drop blindly following what modern people say. It's the same with teachings about eternal hell, people for some reason think there is a "theologumenon" approach to this with differing views and that it is not a clear teaching. When they find out the truth there is a tendency to double down into insane heresies like complete Origenism, perennialism and denial of the resurrection, or just apostatizing altogether. Either outcome is very bad, anon.
If you believe in eternal hell, your basis is Holy Scripture and what the fathers plainly say, then by this logic you have to believe other things meeting the same criteria. Creation of the world in six days is a plain teaching of scriptures and the fathers. Any room for a fully allegorical interpretation is just not there, because you have to say that saints did not really mean what they wrote, or that you do not really have to believe them and at that point you have already apostatized.

>there is no conflict besides Eastern theology and materalist knowledge
Absolutely correct, and it is great that you see the distinction between knowledge and perspective. There is the materialist fact of certain atoms decaying with certain speed, but an interpretation of why/how/when they started decaying is part of a greater perspective (same for all supposed proofs of evolution presenting human-like skeletons). And this is understood using a false system in all of the modern world which denies the fall. If you want to answer questions correctly you need a correct system, if there are falsehoods baked into the very system you use to reason, it is unreliable. Any materialist system "disproving" revelation will have false assumptions in it. You can't hold to both their systems and to Christianity.

>In the case of the secular wisdom, you must first kill the serpent, in other words, overcome the pride that arises from this philosophy. How difficult that is! «The arrogance of philosophy has nothing in common with humility», as the saying goes. Having overcome it, then, you must separate and cast away the head and tail, for these things are evil in the highest degree. By the head, I mean manifestly wrong opinions concerning things intelligible and divine and primordial ; and by the tail, the fabulous stories concerning created things. As to what lies in between the head and tail, that is, discourses on nature, you must separate out useless ideas by means of the faculties of examination and inspection possessed by the soul, just as pharmacists purify the flesh of serpents with fire and water. Even if you do all this, and make good use of what has been properly set aside, how much trouble and circumspection will be required for the task!

>>19234285
Great quote!
> As to what lies in between the head and tail, that is, discourses on nature, you must separate out useless ideas by means of the faculties of examination and inspection possessed by the soul, just as pharmacists purify the flesh of serpents with fire and water.
That is what we're trying to do
> Even if you do all this, and make good use of what has been properly set aside, how much trouble and circumspection will be required for the task!
And that's why it's so difficult... Obviously the medical knowledge and the human beneficience of modern science is commendable... but a scientific perspective means people take it for granted, and forget humility.

>>19234301
>By the head, I mean manifestly wrong opinions concerning things intelligible and divine and primordial
>the fabulous stories concerning created things
This means dropping outright all modern belief on origins of the world or of humans.
We can use their material knowledge or techniques for operating things we see directly, even this is hard on its own, but we can especially not trust their predictions or philosophies on the past. That is inaccessible to the unenligthened mind and we can only rely on the Holy Spirit and the saints to teach us about this.

>>19234429
I disagree with you to some extent, but in all practical ways we are in agreement.
I will acquiesce to the words of my bishop in either case

>>19234435
>in all practical ways we are in agreement.
Evidently not, anon, because we do not both follow the praxis laid out by St. Gregory who teaches to discard all teachings of the philosophers concerning the beginning of the world.
>words of my bishop
You are not obligated to believe him if he teaches contrary to the Church. Holy tradition, the fathers and the councils come first, since a bishop is only supposed to be a humble transmitter of these teachings. If he orders you to do something, you should do it out of humility and respect for his apostolic charism, but he cannot force you to believe in something unpatristic or denied by holy tradition.

It is way easier to be an "Orthodox" than a Catholic. It is actually unfortunate for the "Orthodox" church, which is in schism even with itself, that this is the case. You get to maintain your pride and prelest, and feelings of superiority, by the very act of sagely telling others that they are in danger of pride and prelest. The fact of the matter is that people like St. Francis of Assisi lived holier lives than 99% of "Orthodox" people who ever lived - and that if you believe after such a penance, prayer, sacrament, and service-filled life of dedication to the poor and hungry, that St. Francis is burning in Hell for all eternity, you are, in fact, simply incorrect. If you accept that this holy man was far more likely to go to heaven than the average "Orthodox" layman, you either take up the doctrine of invincible ignorance (at minimum), or remain in your whitewashed tomb, calling a man greater than yourself in literally every way a heretic burning in Hell for eternity. The one, true, holy Catholic and apostolic church has the most rational position - those saints from the schismatic churches which have invincible ignorance could be in Heaven. Please repent, and join the true church, the most ancient church founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of St. Peter, the Catholic church - who has the only rational metaphysical position. I love you, brothers, but do you not see how rebelling against your father causes great pain to the body of Christ?

>>19234751
>It is way easier to be an "Orthodox" than a Catholic.
Imagining pleasure and pain while praying is much easier than true humble spirituality.

>>19234751
>greater than yourself in literally every way
I am not great, but Christ is, who gives me His grace which is only available to in Christ's Church, which did not dogmatize heresy or schism (unlike Rome, which is demonstrably in disagreement with the consensus of the fathers on filioque and immaculate conception and invents a completely innovative ahistorical epistemology where ecumenical councils only teach truth if the statement was somehow ratified by a pope excathedra). Even Vatican I is already in fairy-tale land as far as patristic understanding goes.


No matter how great 'St.' Francis was from any metric, if He was not in the Church he cannot be saved because works do not save us. It's as simple as that and no emotional argument can really work on any serious Orthodox.
>those saints from the schismatic churches which have invincible ignorance could be in Heaven.
This is actually an argument against Roman Catholicism, because invincible ignorance is not a patristic teaching. This presupposes works based salvation which is not patristic teaching. You have created something new. There will be no excuse even for the pagan to have remained pagan when the Day of Judgement comes, as the law is written on their heart and draws them to Christ's Church. Salvation is only in the Church and not for schismatics or heretics, and this is clear from the fathers. At least I would respect the Romans more for still sticking to ancient teachings and not disregarding them because it makes some people feel bad.

Even Roman Catholic pictures such as the one you posted are clear demonstrations of demonic prelest. Rolled eyes, ecstasy, etc is extremely widespread only in the post schism Roman church. It is a completely different spirituality from what came before. No female Orthodox monastic saint engaged in such disgusting fantasies and imaginations like pic related. Roman Catholic female saints really are something else and a clear indication of spirituality gone completely awry.

>>19234751
>ow rebelling against your father
My father would be Satan if I followed Roman Catholicism, because I know it to be a lie.

>>19234751
>Please repent, and join the true church
why? if I can still be in heaven if I do good works and remain in my church?
if I remain, I can still be saved in both your view and the other view.
if I leave, I can be saved in your view but not the other view.
it is not logical for me to leave, so much for the "rational" metaphysics.